There is something serendipitous about Austin Kearns being signed to a a minor-league deal by Cleveland GM Mark Shapiro. Both have long been admired for their potential, but both are widely perceived (at least in certain circles) as disappointments. Despite that perception (which is surely at least somewhat grounded in reality), both have had their moments -- Cleveland's 2007 ALCS run, Kearns' 2002, 2006, and 2007 seasons. By signing Kearns and Shelley Duncan to virtually no-risk, minor-league contracts, is Shapiro showing he's still capable of smart moves? Let's see what Kearns and Duncan have to offer.
over 2 years ago
hans
282 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I like how Mark Shapiro is now considered the Austin Kearns of GMs in the land of Jack Zduriencik worship.
Jack Zduriencik is the jacoby ellsbury of gm’s
by Brick. on Jan 6, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m getting more and more annoyed with those bitches over at FanGraphs. If Shapiro is a disappointment, what does that make the fanalysts who previously worshipped him? Have they even attempted to reflect on what they got wrong?
The writeup of Gootz’s lockup deal is a FanGraphs classic. They regurgitate their standard valuation formulas, blissfully unaware that in the present market, only one or two teams are willing to pay even half of their “market rate” of $4.4 million per marginal win, or whatever it is at the moment.
So the guy goes through the motions, comes up with $17 million for Gootz’s annual value, based on a fairly conservative estimate of 4.0 marginal wins. And does he, at that moment, stop himself and say, whoa-whoa-whoa, 17 superbig ones for Frankling Gutierrez? Maybe I’d better rethink this method! Nobody but the Angels and Cubs are dumb enough to pay that much for an outfielder!
No, of course not. He charges blithely forward and talks about how the Mariners just got $40 million in value for $20 million, saying, in essence: “I did some math, you see, and now that the math is done, I’ve got all the answers.”
My response comes from Oscar Wilde: “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” Except I might say “idiot” instead of “cynic.”
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 4:58 PM EST reply actions 12 recs
Maybe you haven’t noticed but the Shapiro altar at LGT has had many fewer visitors as of late. Could it be that FanGraphs isn’t the only ones who’ve notice the shine coming offa Shapiro’s halo?
We’re just baseball fans and in the end all we have to go on are results. Some of us over-rated self- proclaimed scouts may think that we’ve got a handle on what happens on the ball field or even in the dugout, and some of us self-anointed stats-savvy, baseball analysts may even think that we can appreciate what happens in the GM’s office. But in the end it’s either a HR or a long out to center, a called strike three or ball four, or a brillant early contract extension or a reanactment of the Gorman Thomas signing . So far Hafner’s another Cleveland shooting star, Carmona’s a guy who’s stuff’ll give you a headache – unless you don’t swing at it – and Shapiro’s another Cleveland GM who talked a good game but couldn’t deliver a pennant. It’s all about the results and lately the results have been awful.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Missing the point. It’s not about Shapiro. It’s about lazy analysis. If you want to say Shapiro’s track record sucks, go for it. If you want to use language that implies you could do better, you’d better have something besides what FanGraphs is touting.
by afh4 on Jan 6, 2010 7:13 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Here’s my point: you could make a pretty good case that Mark Shapiro is no better GM than Dayton Moore. As Jay noted above, after you’ve crunched all the numbers you still hafta do a sanity check. A 162 game season is the how you check your management system. As of late, our boyz aren’t doing very well.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I would love to see an attempt made to say that Shapiro is no better than Moore.
by Roger Dorn on Jan 7, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’d love to see the analysis that puts Dayton Moore and Mark Shapiro on the same footing. Just saying.
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Jan 7, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
After the most thorough and comprehensive testing of the fruits of Moore’s and Shapiro’s labor the following results were noted:
Cleveland Indiansc 65 wins and 97 loses
Kansas City Royals 65 wins and 97 loses
That’s as objective as it gets.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
hey, did ya hear? dayton moore once had the same record as mark shapiro. you’re the one cherry picking here.
It’s all about “what have you done for me lately?” and, lately what Shapiro’s done is taken a play-off team and put ’em in the cellar. Kinda like Al Davis.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And crippling us with the Hafner’s albatross of a contract, a farm system “restocked” at the expense of our 25 man roster and little, if anything, to show for our top tier draft picks. There’s thorns among the roses – plenty of thorns.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s all about that?
What exactly is “it” that is all about that?
That phrase is usually used to describe dumbass media coverage and fickle fans.
It has no place in a discussion among intelligent men and women.
by Jay on Jan 7, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
What “it” is is pretty simple. “It” is Shapiro’s managing of a major league baseball team. And as of January 7, 2010 “it” is not very good.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s all about "what have you done for me lately?
That phrase is usually used to describe dumbass media coverage and fickle fans.
It has no place in a discussion among intelligent men and women.
by Jay on Jan 7, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
Oh I’m sure that the Indians current situation is not a topic of discussion “among intelligent men and women” but I’m just about positive that Mr. Dolan and Mr. Shapiro will be discussing it in detail at Mr. Shapiro’s next preformance review.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s not about the organizational intelligence at all. It’s about the organizational economics. The Dolans are in for another red ink bath. They’ll hafta exhibit the patience of Job to keep Shapiro on if that happens.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Seems to me they’ve made it pretty clear that they don’t think replacing Shapiro would help their financial situation.
Sometimes you fire the manager just to fire him. There may even be a point to doing that. I’m not sure the same logic applies to the GM.
by Jay on Jan 7, 2010 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
Using simply wins-losses, you should use organizational records. Shapiro & Moore aren’t simply the GMs of the parent club. In 2009 the records were:
Royals: 271 wins and 312 losses (.464 winning percentage)
Indians: 304 wins and 316 losses (.490 winning percentage)
Whilst .490 isn’t anything to write home about, it does beat the Royals – a team that’s been ‘building’ for what seems like generations (kinda like us).
I just wanted to believe.
The Royals are nothing like us.
We had four 90-win teams in the past decade, and three more that at least were mediocre. We only had two teams that were really bad, sub-.450.
The Royals had no teams that won even 85 games in that decade, and only one team that won more than 75 games. They had seven squads that were sub-.450, including three that were sub-.400 and two more at .401.
They already have $13 million more than we do committed in 2010 salary and will not be projected to win more games. We have an excellent farm system, and they do not.
We suffered some disappointing performances and injuries, and we sold off most of our best players mid-year. And we still won as many games as the Royals. We resemble them only in a year when everything goes wrong.
by Jay on Jan 7, 2010 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Let’s see how 2010 plays out. I’m betting on the Royals to finish ahead of us. Save this post – you can beat me over the head with it next September.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I was trying to stay within the metric he proposed and also leave out any other outside facts/analysis.
I just wanted to believe.
This is the whole Paul Konerko thing all over again. Konerko in a good year looks almost as good as Thome in a bad year. That does not make them remotely similar players.
by Jay on Jan 7, 2010 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
So if I understand you correctly now that your case has been made: You would be indifferent to having your team run by Dayton Moore against having it run by Shapiro?
I said they were similar, not the same.
Ideally I’d like to have my team Hank Peters or John Hart.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
How’s John Hart done in his time in Texas?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
Yeah, I thought Chuck said it was all about “what have you done for me lately”?
When Chuck is arguing against Shaprio then last year’s record is all that matters, and when Chuck is arguing for Hart then his record last decade — although I suppose the 90’s are now two decades ago — is all that matters.
Aha! But Chuck is still being consistent. What have you done for me lately? Chuck doesn’t care what Hart did for Texas.
If you were a little shaper you’d note that Peters was in charge when the Tribe went 57 and 105, even worse than any record Shapiro’s bunch has put up (so far). But he’d still be my first choice.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
No, because he’s extraordiary at identifying and signing talented baseball players. Some time, if you’re interested, take a look at some of the players Peters has signed.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m familiar with the history. I’m just unsure what he has done for us lately. That is, after all, the only thing that matters.
It’s the only thing that matters when you’re judging Shapiro. Other GM’s get the benefit of looking at their whole body of work, but not him.
by Buckeye Brad on Jan 7, 2010 10:47 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm, let’s review the Hank Peters regime, you know for posterity sake, not revisionist history.
Hired 11/2/87.
1988: 78-84, 6th place
1989: 73-89, 6th place
1990: 77-85, 4th place
1991: 57-105, 7th place (Hart promoted on 9/18/91)
No WS championships (since that is how we “grade” GMs), no first half division finishes, heck not a single 80 win season and a severe regression in season 4. Bravo Mr Peters.
While the drafts were favorable for Peters (Nagy, Thome, Ramirez, Giles, the amatur signings were pretty balh (Baez was probably biggest name).
Now Hart had a much better tenure, drafts, amateur signings and of course division titles. But lay off this Peters magic.
I don’t that Hart really had better drafts.
I do know that as productive as some of the drafting was under Peters — Ramirez, Thome, Giles, Nagy — we don’t have the powerhouse team without Hart’s shrewd trades for young players — Lofton, Vizquel, Baerga, Alomar — and free agent signings — Hershiser, Martinez, Murray, Alomar.
by Jay on Jan 8, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
Moore’s latest move: Scott Podsednick. Low-OBP, zero power, bad defense, coming off a respectable year seemingly driven by babip.
This is why Moore is a bad GM. It’s not that Podsednick can’t be a useful player somewhere for some team, it’s that his OBP-lessness is the last thing the Royals need. While Moore may be good at building a minor league system (far from proven, but it’s possible..), it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t have the slightest clue of how to build a major league roster. The guy simply doesn’t get it.
Bottom line: say what you will about Shapiro, but at least he isn’t absolutely terrible. Moore is absolutely terrible.
In the end that’s the point. Moore is by all accounts clueless. Joe Poz has made a living out of documenting Moore’s boneheaded moves. But when the smoke clears Shapiro’s team finished in a dead heat with Moore’s. It’s as if you drew player’s names out of a hat. That system should out perform any team Moore put together. Yet here we are, with a franchise guided by a multiple GM of the Year Award winner, tied for last with a team that Dayton Moore constructed. How is this possible?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
We suffered some disappointing performances and injuries, and we sold off most of our best players mid-year. And we still won as many games as the Royals. We resemble them only in a year when everything goes wrong.
by Brick. on Jan 8, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s possible because even well-managed teams have bad seasons, especially if they have limited resources and their best players become (or threaten to become) free agents.
The Royals BEST season in the last decade was 83 wins, which they accomplished once. Every other season was below .500, frequently well below it. Meanwhile, the Indians have had 3 90-win seasons in the last decade (two of which were clearly the result of Shapiro’s decisions); they also had some bad seasons (2002, 2003, 2009, maybe 2006), but at least there were ups to go with the downs.
Shapiro has obviously made some bad moves over the years. But, can you seriously maintain that his resume is as empty as Dayton Moore’s? Brick just posted an appropriate summary quote which says what I’m trying to say. KC is always bad; we perhaps ought to be grateful that Shapiro has been good enough to ensure that the Indians are NOT always bad.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
I’m not saying the Shapiro and Moore are equivalent GM talents. What I’m saying is that Shapiro and Moore’s results – for 2009 – are the same. Here’s what perplexes me: how can a team run by an upper tier GM talent have the same results as one run by one of the least talented GMs in all of baseball?
2010 should be telling. Earlier Adam posted next year’s Indian’s roster. To call it pathetic would do it an injustice. To my mind they do not compare favorably to the ‘92 Indians – a team that lost 105 games. We’re gonna need a lot of things to go right – Westbrook comes back early, Carmona finds his game, Hafner gets >400 AB, Sizemore’s injuries all heal, Valbuena continues to develop, Choo stays healthy, our bull pen doesn’t implode – for us to be merely mediocre. It would take too many bad breaks for us to lose a hunnert games.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Here’s my point: you could make a pretty good case that Mark Shapiro is no better GM than Dayton Moore
Yeah I said and still believe it. Shapiro’s made some very, very good moves. Many more than Dayton. But in the end, his inability to draft potential Major League talent may negate all of his other “smart” moves leaving us in exactly the same spot the Royals are in.
Sooner or later one of Shapiro’s teams is gonna hafta win something -if he intends to stick around.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Fail, Shapiro already has been to the playoffs, ergo won a division.
If you mean a World Series Championship, then 29/30 GMs should all be fired every year.
He’s right, only 28 of the 30 GMs should be fired every year.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Most of the current ML GMs will be fired at some point. And for precisely the same reason: the inability to win a championship.
Shapiro’s been given a lot of rope and so far hasn’t out shoneTerry Ryan, Dave Dombrowski or Ken Williams.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You could make a case, but not a reasonable case. You could sue Angelina Jolie for not having sex with you, too, but you’re not going to win.
by Jay on Jan 8, 2010 9:55 PM EST up reply actions
We’re gonna need a lot of things to go right – Westbrook comes back early, Carmona finds his game, Hafner gets >400 AB, Sizemore’s injuries all heal, Valbuena continues to develop, Choo stays healthy, our bull pen doesn’t implode – for us to be merely mediocre.
I’m guessing there’s some hyperbole in here, but maybe not given your stance. Taking you at your word, I think this explains some of the difference. You actually think the cupboard is totally bare. This isn’t about you shooting down those sunny dreamers (what are looking at?) who think this team can compete next year; you think this organization is severly lacking in potential talent. If that were true (and obviously, I think its crazy), that would indeed cast a different light on Mr. Shapiro.
That’s right. I think that the Indians team that finished 2009 is a potential 100 loss team. Our pitching is atrocious, just atrocious. You see any 3.50 ERA+ talent in that bunch? Do you really beleive that Wood is a $10M relief pitcher? Have we got anything past our #3 starter?
The teams that Shapiro built all started with at least 2 or 3 All-Star caliber players. In fact the foundation could be attributed to Hank Peters – see fwembt he has done something for us lately – in the person of one Bartolo Colon. Without Colon there’s no Sizemore or Lee, who begat the current minor league hopefuls we’ve got now. In short were running outta cows for Shapiro to trade for magic beans.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think we’ve got a lot of magic beans, and the Lee ones aren’t the best.
I actually think it’s the top, not the bottom of the rotation that’s the worry. I think we’ve got enough tickets for the bottom and its a great bet to be better. To go back to your comment, if Jake and Fausto are pitching well and the bullpen is decent, we’re competing.
by dgcambridge on Jan 8, 2010 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
For that matter, the Colon magic beans so far end at Carrasco, Donald, Marson and Knapp. Those guys are not exactly filling up our Top 10 prospect lists, not like the Colon trio did seven years ago.
by Jay on Jan 8, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
Technically you may be right. But Peters is the guy who scouted him. If you take the time to read the article you can get some idea of how screwed up the Indians organization was when Hank took over. He literally resurrected baseball in Cleveland. Shapiro on the other hand inherited a robust organization with sound financial backing and drove it into a ditch.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m relatively new and don’t really know many of the characters here. Are you Dennis Nosco?
by MickS on Jan 9, 2010 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Last sentence is beyond a mistake. It’s just a baldfaced lie.
What Shapiro inherited was a bloated payroll for an aging roster, a fan base that had stopped selling out the stadium, and a farm system that had only two or three good prospects left in it.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s the some of the players Shapiro inherited in 2001:
Jim Thome
Roberto Alomar
Omar Vizquel
Travis Fryman
Kenny Lofton*
Juan Gonzalez
Ellis Burks
Bartolo Colon
C.C. Sabathia
Dave Burba
Jake Westbrook
David Riske
Bob Wickman
Three of these guys are in the Major Leagues nine years later. Some much for “an aging roster”.
The lie here is that Shapiro had nothing to start with and somehow built the team from scratch.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Great.
Now look up the 2002 salaries and stats for those players.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t expect you to answer this.
I consider this point conceded — that Shapiro inherited a roster that was not going to compete, almost no major league-ready talent in the high minors, and very little talent in the low minors. (We had a few real gems in between in Akron.)
Shapiro’s been in charge of the club for nine years and his lead the Indians to a last place finish at the end of those nine years. Peters took over the Indians in 1987 under much, much worse circumstances. Eight years later Peters team was in the World Series. Enough said.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
So the difference for you between making the World Series and being one game from making the World Series is significant enough for you to judge one a failure and the other a success?
Remember, Chuck is a results oriented boob, and apparently positive results fade at an exponential rate with time.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 10, 2010 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
That would be one positive result. There’s been more negative than positive under Shapiro.
I wish my boss was as forgiving of failure as Shapiro’s apparently is.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I’m sure he is. Unless, of course, you are the very best person in the world at what you do. I’ll assume you aren’t and that assumption leaves you and your version of Mark Shapiro in the same boat.
Shapiro might be good enough to lead the Yankees, Mets, Cubs or Dodger’s to the WS, but I don’t think he’s got what it will take to get us there repeatedly.
He’s had enough time to show us what he can do. It’s clear to me it’s not enough.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Nobody has what it takes to get us there repeatedly Chuck, how can you not get this? The system is stacked against us. Our best bet is to build a minor league system so glutted with talent that we have a puncher’s chance of having enough of our prospects pan out that we can make a playoff run or two. Then we gut the roster for more young guys and start over, hoping we do well enough in those trades to repeat the process. With the system how it is now, there is no building a perennial championship contender outside of the huge money teams. As much as it pains me to say this, the Marlins did it the right way, and that’s why they’ve won the Series twice within 15 years. What Shapiro is doing is the only thing someone in his position can do. The only debate is whether or not he guesses right on players the team has financial control over. Everything else is talent following the biggest paycheck.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Jan 10, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But how many of these guys led directly to players that were part of the 2005 and/or 2007 teams? Sabathia and Westbrook turned into themselves, we all know about Colon (though a lot of credit goes to Shapiro for the execution of that trade, as well as the credit he doesn’t get for inheriting the asset)… Not much else…
What’s hilarious here is that you miss completely the best asset Shapiro inherited … who is currently pictured at the top of this very web site. It betrays a complete disinterest in the way that ballclubs are actually put together.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 8:25 PM EST up reply actions
Let’s just say I’m less than impressed with how the current ball club is put together.
Exactly what is the goal here? To have the highest rated minor league system? be competitive once or twice every five years? go to the play-offs occasionally? Is that it? (I know that you guys think that winning a WS has a high luck factor – I don’t) Me, I want a World Championship – something we haven’t had in almost 62 years. And the key – I think – for us winning one is having a GREAT baseball man in charge. We’re not the Yankees or Red Sox were a merely competent GM can lead the organization to a championship. We’re a middle – rapidly slipping to small – market club with limited assests.
I think Shapiro’s a good, albeit flawed, GM’ After almost nine years in charge I think its clear that he doesn’t have the extrordinary baseball knowleged needed to get it done.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t know if you’ve posted this elsewhere, but who do you have in mind that’s available and has “extrordinary baseball knowlege” to replace Shapiro?
Is this the whale section?
I think this is a fair point, but I’m not sure that guy exists.
We have fairly made light of the irrational exuberance over Jack Z in Seattle. Still, he does seem to be a guy who, like Gillick, has a keen eye for talent while also knowing how to manage his roster and move assets around shrewdly.
Even if we allow that Shapiro has a real gift for devising and executing effective processes (as opposed to merely having an enthusiasm for it), the reality is that may not be as important as that eye for talent.
But I have already written about that at length.
That guys does not exist. It’s nonsense.
by dgcambridge on Jan 10, 2010 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
So you’re saying we should give up on winning another World Series ever, is that right?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
That winning the World Series – to a team in our position – has a high luck factor. Mostly, WS contention has a strong correlation to payroll. If you can’t take advantage of that correlation, you need luck.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Of course you’re right – having a bigger payroll makes it, much, much easier to compete, But then again, how do you explain the Twins sucesss?
I think – hope really – it can be done in our market but it will take an extraordinary talented GM. An Albert Pujols of general managers, as it were. Unfortunately what we’ve got is the Kenny Lofton of GMs. Good, some times great, but lacking the talent to be one of the best ever. We need to keep looking until we find the guy who’s got the goods.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
What exactly is the Twins success? 1 ALCS appearance in the past 15 years which they lost 4-1.
by Roger Dorn on Jan 10, 2010 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If success is only winning the WS then the Twins have been no more successful than the Indians. Can we at least stick to one argument?
At least since 1991.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 10, 2010 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t do that. Don’t act like you even draw the outcome that Shapiro is not successful because the Twins won the Series in 1991. That has no correlation and it completely out of context, especially when you know full well that with increased market base in today’s baseball economy that payroll means more now than it probably ever has. I’m sorry, this shtick has gotten old for me.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
And what I don’t want to hear is “it’s hard to be a small market team and win the WS. It’s not Shapiro’s fault” Of course it’s hard to win a WS. Of course. Hard, but not impossible.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The right conclusion is to look at the overall picture, including past success and failure, and where we are today, and what Shap’s plan is, and decide if we can do better with someone else, or whether we give him more time with his approach.
The wrong approach is to keep rotating GMs until we find the magic super evaluator who can trounce all his competitors with his genius. That is what crap organizations do.
How many times do we have to see, in every sport, that there’s no such thing as the Super GM? John Hart is a great example, and so is Shaprio. There’s way too much luck involved. You’d need 1000 seasons to separate a good GM from a great GM. And the greatest GM ever is not going to push above 50% odds to win a division unless the other teams all totally tank. (You can, I believe, identify a garbage GM fairly quickly.)
I understand that you think we find a better GM out there. Ok, understandable, and I’ll like to hear some suggestions. But these kinds of statements:
He’s had enough time to show us what he can do. It’s clear to me it’s not enough.
So you’re saying we should give up on winning another World Series ever, is that right?
These indicate a belief that some GM’s have “what it takes” to get us to the World Series, and some do not, and Shapiro’s evidently in the latter group.
I keep rewriting my response to that outlook, but I’ll just say:
?
In the end I guess it’s a matter of perspective. I don’t think that giving a guy nine years to produce qualifies as “rotating GMs”. And, being an Indians fan, I’ve heard this “just give the system a little more time” BS at least half a dozen times and yet here we are, nine years into Shapiro’s reign, in last place.
Most of you guys can see Shapiro’s Achilles Heel here: he just can’t draft worth a damn. Or at least he’s unable to hire someone who is. So now it’s: he’s got a new guy, we should get better results – in 2 or 3 years. And true, even if we could clone Peters or Slapnik we’d still be 3 or 4 years out from building our perennial competitor. But I’ve just lost faith in Shapiro – you guys haven’t – yet.
I’ve waited for a baseball championship for a long, long time. I’m tired of waiting.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think one key element you’re missing is that Shapiro is operating in a much, much tougher competitive environment.
The Yankees used to outspend the median by $10 to $20 million. Now they outspend the median by $140 million, and five other clubs outspend the median by $50 million or more. Revenues have grown across MLB since 1995, and there is more central fund money through revenue sharing, MLB.tv, etc. But nowhere near that much.
One of those “five other clubs” is Detroit, and Chicago isn’t that far behind. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that quite a few more front offices are now highly professionalized than 15 years ago.
If you look at the Indians’ dominance in the wake of Peters’ reign, it isn’t just based on the quality of our rosters, but also on an almost complete lack of divisional competition from 1995 through 1999. On top of that, only a handful of teams were able to spend as much as the Indians at that time, let alone more, and nobody spent substantially more until the Yankees jumped the shark from 1999 on.
My point? It’s not at all clear that we make more than one or two playoff appearances under John Hart, operating atop the foundation Peters laid, if we’d had to compete in the AL Central and overall MLB environment in which the Indians now find themselves.
by Jay on Jan 10, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, truthfully. I am thankful to have a GM that will unload some of his better players knowing that your record in one bad season is not as important as building for the future. Once Shapiro recognized we weren’t making the playoffs last year, I am certain the last thought on his mind was finishing the season with a better record than the Royals. Instead he sold off some useful parts and built for the future, 2009 record be damned.
Dayton Moore on the other hand has never made a smart trading of assets and is fielding his version of maximum win output squad every year which just once happened to match Shapiro’s worst team. This is obvious to I think 99% of the baseball watching community, so I don’t know why anyone would ever even use the same record as the Royals as a talking point. It is pointless.
Yeah, that’s exactly the point. Our record last season is irrelevant. If Shapiro’s goal was to finish above the Royals then he wouldn’t have traded Lee and Martinez. In baseball, especially for a small market team, there is no point in being an 80-win team. If you’re going to be bad then be really bad by building for the future.
Comparing Shapiro to Moore by using Shapiro’s worst season as evidence only shows that Chuck is trying to bash Shapiro and isn’t being objective. That’s like saying the Browns are one of the best teams in the NFL because they finished 4-0 in the last month while ignoring everything that happened in the first 12 games.
Our record last season maybe irrelevent to you, but I’m betting that Dolan’s tracking that – and revenues – very, very closely.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Whereas I’m betting Dolan understands the difference between the Indians’ season and the Royals’ season.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 8, 2010 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
But that’s not what we’re talking about. You were using it to demonstrate that Shapiro was no better than Moore. Why do you always bring up things which have nothing to do with the current conversation?
Also, Dolan knows that there isn’t really a difference between winning 65 and winning 75, at least as far as revenues are concerned. The revenues will come when the Indians are contending for the playoffs again, and Shapiro is building for that much better than Moore is right now AND he has a supremely better track record.
The sad fact, Chuck, is that regardless of how the Indians finished the year — 67 wins or 77 — and regardless of whether we retained Victor and Cliff for 2010, season ticket sales for 2010 were going to be totally in the crapper no matter what. Two disappointing seasons in a row, and projected wins and interesting prospects simply don’t put butts in the seats. I’m not bemoaning it, just stating the fact. This club didn’t even draw all that well in 2008, after a fairly scintillating season.
My point? Dolan knows damned well that for all the hot air on the radio dial and cleveland.com, Shapiro’s aggressive moves for the future (and away from 2010) had a positive impact on the team’s bottom line. Whatever they cost in ticket sales, it wasn’t the $20 million or so they saved on salaries. We simply did not have that much revenue to lose, sad as that might be to note.
A smart retreat. As far as attendance, there’s a cart and there’s a horse. Bad team means declining attendance and shedding salary.
And in an alternate universe where the games were sold out no matter how badly the team played, we could’ve kept our Cy Young’uns.
Come to think of it, that really bugs me. That we had to trade two home grown Cy Young winners in their prime because we couldn’t afford them.
I understand the economic reality, but part of that reality is attendance, which is directly related to performance. After a promising ’07, the last couple years have sucked.
Our failure to keep C.C. really had nothing to do with performance or attendance. Lee might have been keep-able, but so were Westbrook and Hafner, and look how that turned out.
We have used up whatever flexibility we might have thought we would have, between three poor-performing contracts, a stagnant economy and disappointing results on the field.
The slow starts haven’t helped.
The disappointments haven’t helped, relative to living up to mediocre expectations.
The Cy Youngs ended up hurting more than they helped.
So to sum up, we’ve sucked recently, but Shap is still a sharp GM.
But at least we had Cy Youngs to trade – why do you think that hurt us?
It seems to me they priced themselves out of our range, while not contributing to contending seasons in 2008 or 2009.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 9, 2010 8:51 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think we got more for them than we’d have gotten for any other AL Top 10 starter, but the morale blowback has been much worse.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, I getcha. The fact that they were Cy Youngs matters more to casual fan’s perspective than the GM’s we traded with.
It still sucks that we had to trade them. And the fact remains that in our market, attendance revenue is important. 2 or 3 years in a row where we’re out of the race by mid-season really affects the budget.
OK, let’s see how this plays out. I’m betting we lose more than 90 games this year, attendance drops below 1.5M, Dolan drops another $20M all of which will put Shapiro’s job in jeopardy. You guys think we’ll play .500 ball, attendance is stable and Shapiro sails on unmolested. Hope yer right.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Dolan has demonstrated pretty strongly that he won’t blame Shapiro for financial problems that are well beyond his control.
Just because you may not understand that doesn’t mean that Dolan doesn’t.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I think that you need to look closer to the qualifier “are well beyond his control”. That’s not exactly a get of jail free pass. A bad team drawing few fans is certainly a result of Shapiro’s management.
You guys say that 2006, 2008 and 2009 were “fluke” seaons. I’m beginning to believe that 2007 was the “fluke”. If 2010 plays out like the other three “flukes” and Dolan arrives at a similar conclusion, he may revisit his decision to keep Shapiro on.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t think “we guys” are saying that.
I would say that the Indians have to operate within severe constraints, as you well know, and those constraints are not of Shapiro’s making.
2010 cannot play out like any of those seasons, because we are not expecting to contend.
by Jay on Jan 9, 2010 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
And these “constraints” differ from the Twins operating limitations how again?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
They got Mauer by sucking so badly they got the first overall pick.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
Well can any of say that the Indians have won a WS in their lifetime?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The list of teams – big market, mid-market, no market – that have won the WS since ’48.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
So, as usual, something totally different than we began discussing.
by Brad D on Jan 11, 2010 8:21 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
It’s simple. The Twins have had a good W-L record in the 00’s. So Chuck calls this “small-market success.” Which it is.
Then someone says that the Twins have sucked in the playoffs, which they have. Chuck has harped that playoffs are all that matter, and by playoffs he only means winning the WS. They haven’t done this, so his logic collapses on itself. Luckily, he is presented an out: they won a WS 19 years ago when both teams were under different management and the game looked different from how it does now. The comparison, for Chuck, is saved.
by joeee on Jan 11, 2010 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
it’s that his OBP-lessness is the last thing the Royals need
Pos must be blowing a gasket by now.
by Jay on Jan 8, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
My points is that there’s a paralysis about re-examining what they’ve assumed in the past.
I hope you will allow that we’ve done a lot of soul-searching and even brain-searching around here on this very subject.
The FanGraphers, meanwhile, continue to praise GMs on the exact same basis that they had for loving Shapiro to begin with. So Shapiro is a disappointment, but they now love Jack Z … for doing the same things that Shapiro has done for years, only with a little more money and (as of yet) no opportunity to disappoint anyone.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 8:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
haha this is so credited
i’ve totally given up on fangraphs analysis. their valuation formulas are a joke (IMO any mathematical formula that spits out convenient “values” is a joke; just ask the black-scholes fanboys at bear sterns). anymore, that site is just a convenient place for me to find UZR.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jan 6, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
Scholes was a hack.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 6, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
Baseball is an easy game once you’ve converted everything to formulas.
by Roger Dorn on Jan 6, 2010 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting to see the Kearns projections, all in the 715 range. I understand where it comes from – he’s had two horrible years following his decent/good years.
But does history really think he might do that? Or is it just the average of two more likely outcomes? Seems to me like he’s a guy who is either A) done, and will be out of the game soon, or B) he was really suffering from his injuries the past two years and will bounce back. So does history really support that he’ll be orange? Or is it just hedging its bets between the more likely outcomes of yellow and red.
The prediction says he’ll be poor – an OPS around 90. But he hasn’t done that in recent history. He’s either been good or horrible. Why would we expect it this year?
I know there was talk of this with Hafner, that he’d either hit or not hit, but wouldn’t muddle in the middle.
I am very tired of the assertion that Shapiro has somehow become an idiot, incapable of making any reasonable moves. It’s ignorant, short-sighted, and disrespectful in the extreme. Shapiro may not be a great GM-I’ve said as much and I’ve slammed him often-but the man is clearly intelligent an methodical. If his moves seem incomprehbsible by your calculations, it’s obvious that Shapiro realizes those numbers and has decided they aren’t the right numbers. And he has other numbers: lots of them. So either tell me what numbers he’s using and why they’re wrong or learn to scout and tell me something he’s missed. But for godssake don’t keep cramming estimated dollars per win values down my throat and acting like one of the guys who innovates that style of decision-making in front offices doesn’t understand. It’s not even a paysite! Of course he’s aware of your non-proprietary numbers!
by afh4 on Jan 6, 2010 7:06 PM EST via mobile reply actions 4 recs
Excuse the typos. Heatedly via mobile.
by afh4 on Jan 6, 2010 7:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
By definition, any manager acting with foresight is going to make choices that seem puzzling when they’re made. I know this is overstating my case, but before it started to rain, Noah was just some dude building a godamighty big raft in a desert.
If Matt Klaassen and the “(certain circles)” he runs in can’t pick up what Mark Shapiro’s layin’ down, I’m inclined to think of it as a good thing, in the same way that I was pleased when all the amateur scouterazzi were up in arms over the Chisenhall draft pick. Reverse barometers, the lot of ‘em. Somewhere along the line, they lost the thread of the saber-narrative, in which the data leads us to independent conclusions. If you hadn’t noticed, all punk rock sounds the same today, too.
While we’re ranting … The going jab at Shapiro, as I understand it, is that he’s turned into a quantity-over-quality guy, management by brute numerical force. Here’s a question: What if, in the world where Bill James works for the Red Sox, quantity is the answer? What if the way to beat to the attrition rate of your talent on a bottom-ten budget is not to juke the attrition rate, but to overrun it? What if you stop trying to build the very best mousetrap, and settle for covering the floor with them?
Sure, you can turn Cliff Lee and Ben Francisco into Kyle Drabek … if he’s all you want. But he’s one guy.
Years ago, I remember Tony Kornheiser fielding a draft question about the quarterback situation on the Browns on PTI, and he waved his hand at the whole premise. “They need fifteen first-round picks,” is what he said. John Mirabelli took a question about the Martinez and Lee trades last year, and he gave an answer that reminded me of Kornheiser’s: (paraphrasing) “They’re both great talents, but they’re still only two guys.”
So, (certain circles), it may be that Mark Shapiro no longer targets this guy, or that guy, or (let’s be honest here) whomever Dave Cameron once said something nice about. Question you’ve yet to ask, (certain circles), is, what is Shapiro can’t afford to? Careful about answering it, though, because it might be something nobody else is saying.
by fleerdon on Jan 6, 2010 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 9 recs
egregious use of parentheticals that allow the author to distance himself from the criticisms he is making.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jan 6, 2010 7:18 PM EST up reply actions
I’m giving you your moment here with no flak. Enjoy it.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 9:48 PM EST up reply actions
this is dubious
but the fawning over jack z is out of control, and the shapiro backlash has certainly gone too far. even i’ll admit that.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jan 6, 2010 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
You’re right, no question. We love to tear them down, and we love when they come back punching.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
In fairness … another recent FanGraphs piece talks about the Top 5 and Bottom 5 GMs, and the writer is sore tempted to sneak Shapiro onto the Top 5. He ends up going with Melvin. Fact remains, Jack Z has won nothing … and of course makes the Top 4.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 9:48 PM EST up reply actions
I am the author of the article lnked above
and, in fact, I wrote both articles…
I know my writing style… leaves something to be desired (ahem), and I should have made it more clear that I was discussing perceptions of Shapiro (or, more accurately, the 2008 and 2009 Indians — I for one, expected them to win the division running away both years) as being “disappointing.” I still think he’s an outstanding GM.
In the “best and worst” article, I left him out of the “Top 5” because my main point actually wasn’t about the GMs, but about the AL/NL intelligence gap. I left Shapiro off because I wanted to try to avoid too many arguments about whether certain guys should or shouldn’t be on the list (I failed there, too).
So, in short: 1) I liked the Kearns/Duncan signings very much, and 2) feel their emblematic of Shapiro’s strengths as one of the best GMs in the game (however nebulous that concept might be — he certainly heads one of the best front offices in the game in my opinion).
I don’t speak for all the FanGraphs authors, but here’s what Dave Cameron wrote about Shapiro and the front office about a year ago:
Front Office: A+
Mark Shapiro and his gang of advisers set the standard for how a front office should operate. The implementation of DiamondView gave them the ability to combine scouting and statistical data into a resource that could be used at all levels of the organization. They’ve established a fundamental system that works from top to bottom, and explore every area that could give them a competitive advantage. They understand how to value talent, where the inefficiencies are, how to build a roster that works together, and how to sustain winning teams through player development. It’s hard to find any chinks in the armor – the Indians front office is what everyone else aspires to be.
Anyway, thanks for reading.. I’m working on being more clear and concise in small chunks. And I’m pretty close to drinking the Indians Kool-Aid again this season…
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 6, 2010 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
Good on you for stopping by. Had I known you’d actually be around to read my comments, I would have made at least one less “(certain circles)”-related crack.
by fleerdon on Jan 6, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
"they ARE emblematic"
yes, English is my first language, why do you ask?
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 6, 2010 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
Funny, I never made the connection that Matt Klaassen = devil_fingers.
For those who don’t know, Matt is also one of the main authors over at Driveline Mechanics. Among other things, he notably wrote what’s probably the definitive article showing the superiority of the AL over the NL in recent years (recently cited by Rob Neyer).
I could quibble and say that you’d make a better argument by making a more objective case for who the best and worst GMs “really” are. Whatever that means. But I get what you were trying to do, avoid the controversy by going with generally agreeable lists. That said, your lists definitely reflect FanGraphs orthodoxy, for better and worse.
The problem, Matt, is that I cited your article as one of the less stupid FanGraphs articles recently. I think Dave Cameron posts some really tremendous stuff, but he also is guilty of just crushing obtuseness sometimes. The site in general flirts with being a first-division analysis site … but then also seems horribly bush league, way too often. It’s just kind of rudderless.
I won’t reiterate my critique of the “value” obsession as a fixed formula, because I think it’s already been said. It is alarming that the site just buzzes along, apparently blissfully unaware of how narrow its views can be, even coming from a generally pro-sabermetric perspective.
Again, I won’t speak from the site as a whole, as I’m the lowest guy as the totem pole at the moment, but from a readers perspective, I think there are a variety of viewpoints and different positions. And,yes, there is a variance in the quality of pieces (and the more civil criticisms remind me that I have a lot to work on — for example, avoiding qualifying everything to death at the expense of clarity, as I’m doing with this parenthetical remark…).
One thing to keep in mind is that for me (and I suspect many of the other authors), this is a hobby. That doesn’t mean the standards should be lowered — if a analyst is right or wrong, it doesn’t matter who much time he or she spends on it. Truth is truth. I just think that’s where a lot of the variance comes from, and as writers come and go and get more experience, etc. things will wax and wane.
But this isn’t the space (and I’m not the person) to give a “defense” of FanGraphs. I do think that recent articles by Cameron and others do make points about spending relative to win curves. Implicitly, at least, my Kearns/Duncan mess is the notion that these sorts of minor-league deals are particularly smart in a something of a rebuilding period for Cleveland because they’re on the “other end” of the curve (although, unless my spreadsheet is really screwed up [always a possibility], they aren’t nearly as bad as people think — I think they have a legit shot at the AL Central this season, even with a Brantley/Crowe LF). I guess I’m just pointing to that as an area among others in which there is progress (sort of like bringing Dave Allen in as the main Pitch f/x person).
[See what I mean about the parentheses?]
Anyway, thanks for the nice words, Jay (although as much as I’d like to let it stand, my article on interleague isn’t definitive — derivative, more like it, but I’ll take all the compliments I can get, deserved or not. I’m needy that way). I appreciate the civil interchange.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 7, 2010 12:24 AM EST up reply actions
Jay, you should understand that FanGraphs is not groupthink. Everyone who writes for the site pretty much writes independent analysis. There’s really little to no discussion behind the scenes about what “angle” to take on a particular player, trade, or signing.
If one of the many different voices on the site is not your cup of tea, you don’t have to read them. I personally think that they all bring something unique to the table and write informed analysis, but of course I’m going to be biased.
Aren’t you using “serendipitous” where you mean to use “fitting”?
by JulioBernazard on Jan 8, 2010 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
“I do not believe it means what you think it means.”
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
by Ockus_NYC on Jan 8, 2010 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Hmm... maybe
or maybe it was serendipitous for me to stumble upon the transaction, while also being fitting
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 8, 2010 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
moving this over to restart the topic.
Chuck, you have to stop using Peters as your savior. As has been discussed above, Peters record as a GM is actually pretty poor. If you want to say Hart over Shapiro, then you have a case. But given the results between Peters and Shapiro, I’d guess 95% of us LGTers will take Shapiro.
Secondly, I’d like to take another issue with you chuck. You remind me of a sportwriter in San Jose, Jon Wilner. For four years now he has debased the Big 10 against the SEC, Big 12 and even the Pac10. Now over the last 4 years, the Big10 has performed somewhat poorly, but what I harp on Wilner for is his inconsistency.
For example, he will nitpick every non conference schedule of the Big 10 to show how crappy they are. But he will never use this in downgrading any other conference, especially the “mighty” SEC.
When you post your opinion on some topics, you tend to be very steadfast or downright crotchety. You are very good at showing some proof in your arguments. However, when contrasting evidence is provided, you either do not acknowledge it, or change your stance ever so slightly.
I enjoy having you as a naysayer, and I do agree with you on certain topics, so don’t think I am singling you out (I’d do it for other posters as well). But, when contrary evidence is provided, you have to admit that you have been proven incorrect, or provide other statistical evidence to prove the provided evidence to be wrong.
by talonk on Jan 10, 2010 8:35 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Let’s get the Hank Peters thng out of the way first. Peters was the Orioles GM when they won three division championships, two pennants and a World Series. When the Tribe hired him I thought, “this guy can’t be all that. Otherwise why would he sign on with the bust-out bunch of losers?” Five years later after a 105 loss season my opinion hadn’t changed. But later it was apparent that Hank Peters was exactly what the Indians needed: an other-worldly baseball talen evaluated wlling to take the heat while the papooses matured. He turned over the pieces to Hart who added the missing parts to the puzzle. But make no mistake, if Peters hadn’t found the amateur raw talent the Indians would probably be playing in Las Vegas today.
If I’m going to remain a baseball fan I’ve got to believe that my guys will out work, out think and out manage the BoSox and Yankees of the world. Otherwise I might as well be a fan of the Washington Generals.
Finally the reason I keep coming back to Peters is that most of you guys pooh-pooh old school guys like him. I doubt that he could talk stats with Bill James, or that he could construct a spreadsheet – hell I’ll bet he’s never owned a computer. But here’s the thing he could do: he could hop in his Buick Electra 225, drive around East Texas for a week and come back and tell you who was the real propects and who was Brien Taylor. I’m not too sure that Shapiro etal can do that.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
is that most of you guys pooh-pooh old school guys like him.
Care to give an example? I am a big fan of traditional scouting (particularly since I can’t do it myself) and my take is that a lot of other readers of this site appreciate it as well. Since the majority of us are not scouts, we tend to evaluate the statistics more, but it doesn’t mean we “pooh-pooh” scouting.
So this all boils down to your insecurities about being a nerd.
by Jay on Jan 11, 2010 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Uh, Baltimore won two division titles under Peters, 1979 and 1983…unless of course you are counting the year before he was hired. Which by the way, in the 6 previous seasons to Peters taking the Baltimore job they won their division 5 times, the pennant 3 times and 1 WS compared to two division (and pennants) and 1 WS in his 13 years at the helm. I’d also like to hear how he built those two pennant winners. All the major players of the 79 team were with Baltimore before Peters came in while the 83 team he bring in some needed talent to buffer the already present stars. Now I want to hear why you see him as this “other wordly baseball talent evaluator”? I could try to look it up myself but I’d rather read you explain to me why he is so great. Better yet, I’ll concede on some points. Yes, Peters drafted Manny, Thome, and Nagy for the 90’s team and traded Carter for Baerga and Alomar. I can see those. I will not give you Cal Ripken Jr. though, I can’t give a man credit for having the foresight to draft his 3rd base coach’s sons. All that aside, I want you to explain the genius of drafting Mark Lewis; trading Julio Franco for a governor and two nothings; wasting the 11th pick in the 89 draft on a player that didn’t sign; signing Keith Hernandez; drafting Tim Costo over Carl Everett, Mike Mussina, Jeromy Burnitz, Rondell White, and Steve Karsay; and lastly, I want you to apologize to my childhood for Ron Kittle.
by The Grimace on Jan 11, 2010 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
I looked it up to make sure, while I know Hart had a hand in Manny, he didn’t take over for Peters until September 1991.
by The Grimace on Jan 11, 2010 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
But…it is kind of obvious that Peters had some serious help. Or maybe Hank finally decided to put some serious miles on the ole’ Buick Electra 225 as it was the best draft in terms of amounts of ML talent in his tenure.
You’ve left some other highligts out there Grim. Hank started with the St. Louis Browns, the team that would later become the Baltimore Orioles. He left the Browns to work for the Kansas City A’s – that’s right, before they moved to Oakland the A’s played in KC – where he was scouting and later minor league director. In addition to Manny and Thome and Nagy Peters was also insturmental in scouting and signing Rick Monday, Reggie Jackson, Blue Moon Odom and Catfish Hunter. Later he was sixth president in the history of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, the umbrella group that governs minor league baseball, from 1972 to 1975. Hank’s got quite the pedigree.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Wow great history. Except Peters didn’t draft Jackson. He claims he did in this interview, but seeing as how he was the Indians Farm Director in 1966 when Jackson was drafted I have to call his assertion into question. In the interview he also claims to have drafted Albert Belle, except he was Baltimore’s GM when Belle was drafted in 1987 (Belle drafted in June, Peters fired from Baltimore in October and hired by the Indians in November).
Wow great history. Except Peters didn’t draft Jackson. He claims he did in this interview, but seeing as how he was the Indians Farm Director in 1966 when Jackson was drafted I have to call his assertion into question. In the interview he also claims to have drafted Albert Belle, except he was Baltimore’s GM when Belle was drafted in 1987 (Belle drafted in June, Peters fired from Baltimore in October and hired by the Indians in November).
Ahhh very nice of you to change the argument once again. In the past, you raved about Peters AS THE Clevelnad GM, but now that has been shown to be faulty … you move onto his past in Baltimore.
Bravo .. Peters was a fine GM in Baltimore, no denying that, but if you are going to rest his laurels AS A Cleveland GM on 4-5 draft picks that is actually pretty funny. Hart was a much better GM in signing FA, amateur FA and trades than Peters ever was. Granted Hart’s drafting probably was worse than Peters, but if a GM scores as a good to great trader and signings, but fails a bit in drafting, I believe that is better than someone who drafted pretty well and had a piss-poor record in his 4 years as GM.
I believe that is better than someone who drafted pretty well and had a piss-poor record in his 4 years as GM.
Especially given that Chuck insists that wins and losses are all that matters.
Especially given that Chuck insists that wins and losses are all that matters
No, no ….. they only matter when it fits his theory.
Again, what I rail on that one sportswriter, chuck is doing the same thing: Inconsistently applying parameters. IF you apply a parameter to one individual, you cannot ignore the same parameter from someone/something else, just because it puts a hole in your argument.
Baseball is a business where a lot of young guys have been moving up the ladder very rapidly and becoming general managers. Most of them seem to have been well-grounded in what you might call business and computer operations. As an example, up in Cleveland, Mark Shapiro was the last guy that I hired when I retired. We hired him because he had expertise in computers (Read The Biz of Baseball interview with Mark Shapiro). This was in 1992, and we were just then really getting into the computerization of our scouting information and other facets of our business. We felt his work could really help us in that area, which he did. I then retired, so the rest is kind of history. But he did very well and he moved up the ladder in the Cleveland organization and eventually became the general manager [in 1992]. But his entry into baseball was the result of Mark looking like he had a lot going for him. He had knowledge in a field where we needed help. And the fact that I knew his dad, too. Ron Shapiro [a well-respected sports agent since the inception of free agency] is a heck of a guy.
Today I think that if you’re going to try to become a general manager there’s several things. First, you better have a deep love for the game of baseball because it’s a very demanding business. It looks like a lot of glamor, but there’s an awful lot of work involved, too, and some ungodly hours that you have to devote to your job. Also, I think they need to be well-grounded in the use of computers, electronic devices, and all the other things that are now coming into vogue.
Hank Peters clearly knows how to use a computer. It’s obvious from that quote and from the entire article that he has tremendous respect for the use of computers in running a team and that he himself knows how to use one. It is embarrassing that you would assert otherwise. He was working at the top of his field in the late 80s/90s. There 45 millions PCs in use in the US in 1988. I can’t imagine every front office in the majors wasn’t using them.
by afh4 on Jan 11, 2010 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
So, here is what I have learned from Chuck. The very best indicators of a current G.M.’s overall abilities are:
1. His team’s most recent seasons won-loss record.
2. His franchise’s history of winning the World Series irrespective of his dates of employment.
3. Something about evaluating talent, drafting and trading but only when it went well for some G.M.‘s and only when it went poorly for others (I’m a little fuzzy on this part).
Have I got it right? Help me guys, I’m trying to learn.
by MickS on Jan 11, 2010 9:24 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
4. Disdain for computers
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 11, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Here’s what I’ve learned:
1. Hank Peters knows how to write a very nice Valentine for his friend Ron Shapiro’s kid Mark
2. It is impossible for a small market team to win a WS in the early 21st century
3. Baseball front offices were using spreadsheets long before they were common at the world’s largest R&D firm, Battelle Memorial Institute.
OK, I get it. We’ve got the best possible management system in place at Carnegie and Ontario and should place a banner over the entrance to the Jake. “Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here”.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t think anybody is saying this. I feel what most are saying is that the original claim that a “pretty good case [can be made] that Mark Shapiro is no better GM than Dayton Moore” is 1.) dubious in general and 2.) certainly not well supported by anything in this thread.
Waaay up the thread Andrew got all huffy saying “If you want to use language that implies you could do better (than Shapiro), you’d better have something besides what FanGraphs is touting.” I happen to agree with FanGraphs. I think any random GM could take the 2002 Indians – including Dayton Moore – and in eight years time have them in last place. Anybody. Jay says this is farce. I think it’s the truth.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Could anybody also have them one win from going to the World Series in only 5 years?
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
This is like Chuck opining on the Royals’ farm system and its “superior” comps to the Tribe’s farm. A smart, intelligent and (perspective adding) Indians fan marrying himself to an incorrect viewpoint that he knows is wrong but is too proud to back down.
You maybe right. Maybe my view point is boneheaded. You’ll have to forgive me but I’ve heard all of this “we’ve got the rocks we can build on in the pipeline” BS before. From Charley Spikes, to Joe Charbaneau to Cory Snyder to Andy Marte.
Right now, today, I don’t see a lot on our 25 man roster. Maybe there’s gems hidden in there like in ‘92. I just can’t see them
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
This is silly. We have one of the best collections of young position players in the game. Maybe not the very best, but it’s pretty good, and it’s pretty young, and there are some rookies and sophomores likely to improve.
Gems: Sizemore, Choo, Asdrubal. Maybe Valbuena, LaPorta, Brantley, Marson. In the next couple of years, maybe, Santana, Chisenhall, Weglarz, Donald.
That’s an entire starting lineup plus a couple bench players. I don’t think you’ll find many comparable groups of young position players in other organizations. Not even the Royals.
by Jay on Jan 12, 2010 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
It’s really quite absurd that it comes to this. No rational fan of baseball nor mildly informed writer believes that any part of the Royals organization is the equal of the Indians. This entire nefariously whimsical conversation has come about because of the capricious argumentation of a person with an axe to grind. Comparing the Indians organization and the Royals organization is a rhetorical device so obviously asinine that it boggles the mind.
by Brad D on Jan 12, 2010 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I like Choo and Asdrubal. Valbuena might be a major leaguer. Sizemore and LaPorta are both coming off lower extremity surgery – not a good sign for young guys. Where’s the pitchers? Laffey maybe. I haven’t seen Rondon throw yet. It’s all very tenuous.
For you to believe that the Indians are future play-off competitors you hafta believe the guys in the minors are the real deal. Of the group you mentioned I’ve only seen about half of them play. And two of those are in rehab.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
There are enough young, quality position players that we don’t need anywhere near all of them to pan out to envision a real contender.
The problem obviously is the pitching; this is just a truism. I can’t see exactly who our 2012 rotation is, but what is clear is that there is an unbelievably long list of candidates. True, most of them are real long-shots, but all pitching prospects are long-shots.
Intuitively, I’d like to see more A-list pitching prospects, but it may be that that isn’t actually the best strategy. Maybe it really is about having 20 viable guys. A guy like Laffey looks like a real major leaguer but was never an impressive prospect. The bigger problem for a 2012 window is that it often takes more than 2-3 years for guys like these to pan out.
OK, I get it. We’ve got the best possible management system in place at Carnegie and Ontario and should place a banner over the entrance to the Jake. "Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here"
Yes, that is very neat summation of everything that has been written here in the last six months. Well done.
If you back it up a little here and get away from various rhetorical traps and snares, what is being said is hard to deny: At the end of the day—i.e., at the end of the 2009 season, at the end of an eight-year run as general manager—Shapiro has the Indians in the unenviable position of having an identical W-L record with the risible KC Royals. That’s a fact, plain as day. Now, there are mitigating factors about the Indians’ 2009. They weren’t as bad as their record, as they went into the tank pretty early in the season, and were playing for a zombie manager. But the fact remains: for all his bona fides as GM, Shapiro was shown to have feet of clay last season. He had to trade two great players (on the heels of having to trade another great player in 2008). He has “restocked” the farm season (perhaps) with a variety of sprats that may or may not grow to become big-league players, but this was at the expense of three very good players. He has had terrible drafts, uneven international signings (perhaps par for the course), demonstrated questionable talent-recognition abilities, bizarre managerial decisions, and has little to show for all his computational expertise and confounding corporate speak. At the end of the day the Tribe is not successful, and the hubris of the front office has been apparent for all Indians fans to see.
This has been said before, and some will say (perhaps with some basis) it has already been driven into the ground. I disagree with Chuck’s hagiography about Hank Peters. Peters might be underrated (and Shapiro is almost certainly overrated), but I don’t think he was responsible for the 1990s Indians. I think that was a confluence of various factors, some of which was shrewd drafting by Peters. I don’t think Superman himself could take over the Indians and have them win a World Series. But I agree that Shapiro maybe isn’t the man to do it, either.
Pursuing Chuck’s rhetorical assertions, and tracking them down does nothing to diminish the basic fact that the Indians tied for last place in 2009 with the Royals. KC does awfully stupid things (Kendall) that thankfully the Indians don’t do, but that doesn’t exonerate the Cleveland front office, which has done different kinds of stupid things (Sowers?).
At the end of eight years, what do the Indians have? The magic beans came to naught. Shapiro inherited some assets from his predecessor (though maybe not as many as Chuck asserts), did little to augment them, and now we find ourselves fans of a team that tied the Royals last season with a 65-97 record. I’m sure a Royals fan would find such comparisons insulting—because the Indians have been better than the Royals, by far—but there she is.
At the end of eight years, what do the Indians have?
one major point is that it’s useless to zoom in on this one plot point across that eight years and beyond. other things that happened in those eight years matter – like the other 7 years’ records. and the future matters. last i checked, we weren’t fighting it out with the royals for the last spot to get merged with the nba. painting the end of ’09 as some kind of finish line to a made-up race makes no sense whatsoever.
“At the end of the day” is a stupid rhetorical trick, utterly devoid of meaning when you’re at the end of nothing, save an arbitrary time period coinciding with the end of the most recent season. Yeah, at the end of the 2009 season, “Shapiro ha[d] the Indians in the unenviable position of having an identical W-L record with the risible KC Royals.” And at the end of the 2007 season, he had the Indians in the enviable position of having an identical W-L record with the AL juggernaut Boston Red Sox (and 27 games better than the risible KC Royals."
Think Shapiro is clearly not the man for the job and you can identify a better alternative? Fine, then let’s have that discussion. We need a corollary for Godwin’s Law referring to those bringing up the 2009 Royals.
I agree with you that it’s an arbitrary time period, but it also happens to be where we are right now, so maybe it has some relevance. I also agree we should declare that any argument citing the Royals is an automatic concession of desperation.
I don’t see the need to have a better alternative if I think Shapiro is not the man for the job. I don’t have to have an answer in order to ask a question. All I am saying is that he might not be the man for the job. What is Pat Gillick up to these days?
At the end of the day, this is all wasted rhetoric that ignores everything that has transpired over the last eight years in attempt to make a point that is barely a point at all.
I haven’t read every item in this thread, but it seems you could boil everything down to the last two years results, rather than the last eight years. At the end of 2007, pretty much everybody would’ve agreed that there had been forward progress pretty much in line with The Plan. All along, 2007 was the “arrival date”, and it seemed we were there.
That’s what makes the last two years so hard to swallow – it was as if the progress from ’03 to ’07 never happened.
Personally I thought we got very lucky in ’07 with callups performing unexpectedly well, but it still seemed like forward movement, making the last two years that much more bitter a pill.
Here’s the hangup:
Chuck is saying that Shapiro is “no better than” Dayton Moore. Shapiro is not beyond criticism. No one is saying that he is no-doubt-about it the best GM in baseball. No one is happy that we didn’t win it all in ’07, or even ’05 or perform well in ’06 or ’08. But by marrying the comparison to DM, the argument devolves into “Shapiro is great” or “Shapiro is terrible, as terrible as Dayton Moore.” Shapiro is better than Dayton Moore. Shapiro is not the best GM in baseball right now. Chuck picked another executive as a comparison and is going out guns blazing with it, but obviously (obviously!) Shapiro is somewhere between the poles “awful” and “phenomenal.”
Even this is too generous. I think you would have trouble finding anyone within the industry who wouldn’t put Shapiro in the Top 10 out of 30 — even given his club’s present-tense low-water mark. That’s because within the industry, there’s a keen appreciation for the constraints under which he works. At the same time, few if any would put Moore outside of the Bottom 10.
This is where these two men realistically fall within the industry. In an off-year for Shapiro’s team and a typical year for Moore’s, they are still at least 10 spots apart out of 30.
It’s hyperbolic, I agree. That’s why I don’t put too much credence in it. But why did you add the last two words to your sentence: “Shapiro is not the best GM in baseball right now”? Was he ever the best GM in baseball?
I’m not sure what the appropriate performance metric(s) are for a G.M. but I’m pretty sure it’s not the win-loss record for a single season, no matter where that season falls in the sequence of seasons.
If one metric is to acquire terrific talent, I would rank Shapiro pretty high on the list. The results from that talent are at the mercy of many things that are, at best, only partially under the G.M.‘s control like available resources, the health of said terrific talent and even luck. I’m not trying to give Shapiro a pass but how can anyone call a G.M. that acquired Choo, Cabrera and Santana for Broussard, E. Perez and Blake a terrible G.M.
I wish that the Shapiro regime had a better amateur draft track record but “at the end of the day” does it really matter if the talent came form the draft, free agent signings, amateur international signings or trades.
does it really matter if the talent came form the draft, free agent signings, amateur international signings or trades.
i’ve always been in this camp. the counter point being though, “why not have all of the above.”
And, perhaps because we’re a small-market team, we need all of the above. Could be the case that Shapiro is good — really good — just not quite good enough to get a small-market team over the hump. Not saying I agree with this, but that’s the basis of the rational argument against Shapiro.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 12, 2010 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
A point I’d hoped to make downthread is that I’m not sure we can isolate Shapiro’s success and failure in the various modes of player acquisition. Put another way, he’s not a videogame character — a 89 in “Trading,” a 61 in “International Free Agents,” and a 24 in “Rule 4 Draft”. The budget limitations he faces rear their heads everywhere.
I’m laboring over the point unnecessarily, I guess. All this crap’s inter-related. The trades have been good, but the reason we have to make them is that we don’t have the cash in hand to do the higher-risk-higher-reward stuff, and we don’t have the free agent budget to spend our way out of mistakes. Like in the Montero article I linked: have we ever thrown $1.6MM at a 16-year-old? Should the Yankees scouts really get any credit for landing him, when they could afford to buy six more just like him, every season, and wait for the one that pans out?
by fleerdon on Jan 12, 2010 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
Before somebody tells me I’m just in the bag for Mirabelli: None of this excuses poorly projected draft picks. It’s just that, I don’t think we can say “if only Shapiro ran a better draft” as if it’s a self-contained issue.
by fleerdon on Jan 12, 2010 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
Of course, we’d all like it better if more of that terrific talent came from the draft and Blake/Broussard like trades rather than trading away our best players for good prospects.
I think the draft matters because we can compete equally with the other teams there, whereas we can’t in FA (pro or prospect) $$.
I recently compared our draft success to Boston’s, a team that since Epstein became GM has been touted for much the same sabermetric smartness as Shap’s regime. Of course, they have more money. But they have still done a much better job at drafting future major leaguers – identifying both college and prep prospects that have the ceiling, tools and polish to not only succeed in the minors but also project as a big leaguer. This from a team that did not suck and did not have those early round picks.
Money and draft order don’t really apply – Boston simply was/is better at evaluating and picking talent thru the draft.
BA just published a ranking of all team’s drafts from 2005 thru 2008. San Fran and Boston did the best, Atlanta (another team that seems to know what they’re doing in the draft) was highly ranked during that time, and Cleveland was 5th to last, getting C or D grades for every year except 2008 (Chiz!).
I’m not tooting BA’s horn particularly – it just seemed to back up some baseball-data grazing I had been doing…
Thus pointing out the folly of having this argument at this time. There have been two drafts since the club shook up its amateur scouting hierarchy in November 2007. The 2008-09 drafts seem to have been generally well-regarded, even if the previous iterations were panned.
I agree – Shap does adapt over time and I think the shakeup was good, it was something that needed an adjustment.
My main point in the comment above is that the draft shouldn’t be undersold as a way to compete for talent (for any team, but especially for small budget teams), and that its not a crap shoot – some are better at it than others.
Of course, they have more money.
i don’t think this is your intent, but i don’t think this can simply be glossed over. i would think that greatly alters one’s ability to have successful drafts – not just the for over slot guys, themselves.
To some degree, but not nearly as much as the obvious advantages for roster budgets and FA signings. While a rich team like Boston may go the extra $$ mile on a flyer or two, the draft expenditures aren’t nearly as different as the overall team budgets.
The biggest difference remains the picks themselves.
i’m sure that’s the case. think out loud here. and will again… i know the indians focus a lot on signability. in your comparrison did many of boston’s picks not sign? is this something you posted here?
I don’t know over the entire drafts. Initially I was focusing on the “impact” early rounds 1-4, thinking that that was where the draft strategies show clearest differences (and the most impact!). I’m not sure, but I think both teams signed everyone they picked there the last several years. I’d have to go back and chk.
I checked, Boston had one unsigned during that period. As a short list, here’s a comparison of those who’ve made it to the bigs from each team’s 2003-present drafts (rounds 1-3):
Boston:
David Murphy
Matt Murton
Abe Alvarez
Dustin Pedroia
Craig Hansen
Clay Bucholz
Jacobi Ellsbury
Mike Bowden
Daniel Bard
Aaron Bates
Justin Masterson
Cleveland:
Aubrey
Garko
Sowers
S Lewis
J Lewis
Crowe
Huff
Also, Boston (like Atlanta) proved much more willing to trade high prospects to supplement the ML club as needed.
I was focusing on the "impact" early rounds 1-4
Not quite sure about this. Wouldn’t evidence of big-market teams drafting holdouts, whose demands might be unreasonable for a smaller-market team, make itself apparent in later rounds?
by fleerdon on Jan 12, 2010 8:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but I was just focusing on the early rounds cuz it was easier, and avoided to some degree the issue of late round splurging. I was just interested in a straight comparison of the high picks, which has the biggest concentration of future ML’ers.
Its interesting that most of the current Red Sox top 10 list were later round picks. Some were paid a lot more than slot, some not.
I don’t doubt the Sox spent more in the later rounds, since they have more money.
Expanding the above list to all rounds from 2003 on, the following have made it to the majors:
Boston:
Jon Papelbon
Cla Meredith
RJ Swindle
Dustin Richardson
Josh Reddick
Cleveland:
Kouz
Laffey
Gimenez
Toregas
Sipp
Of those I believe Laffey, Sipp and Reddick were paid more than slot, but not more than 200k.
Money and draft order don’t really apply
More scouts? Better-paid scouts? More analysts? Better-paid analysts? Big free-agent budget to cover for high-profile failed picks? Less relative financial risk from any high-profile failed picks? Bigger budget for player development?
What you’re saying has merit, plainly, but even if Boston and Cleveland had identical budgets for the actual signing bonuses, my talking-outta-my-ass take is that the Red Sox have more cash to throw at every other level of these transactions, and much less on the line if something goes wrong with them.
And, of course, they don’t have identical draft budgets.
I want to say that international free agency — in which the Indians might be scouting wonderfully, but are out-spent by oodles — plays a role here as well, but I’m not sure how. Maybe because the big-market teams can fill out their systems with the pick of the international litter, they’re in a position to pursue more raw talents in the draft?
by fleerdon on Jan 12, 2010 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
Have the Indians acquired terrific talent? I don’t know. They’ve done a better job than the Nationals and the Royals, certainly. But is it terrific? Maybe I’m missing something, but it doesn’t look all that great from here.
The free agent signings have been mediocre, but maybe that’s normal for free agent signings. The international signings have also been so-so (thank you, Fausto). In trades Shapiro has been excellent. The draft has been labored over many times and I don’t want to repeat it.
Well you can’t lambaste them for trading all their great players and then also lambaste them for not having any great players in the first place, can you?
The word “lambaste” makes me hungry for a gyro.
by fleerdon on Jan 12, 2010 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That’s a good point. So the answer to the question: Where are all the great players? is…
Playing for other teams.
You would think Chuck would worship Shapiro for having the foresight to acquire Cliff Lee before he got good.
There’s some progress in that. And I recognize the fate of these players is not all in the hands of the general manager. But not all the circumstances were beyond his control.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Jamie Moyer legs out infield single, drives in two runs
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
