Shapiro's hits and misses
The NBC Sports blog Hardball Talk (formerly Circling the Bases) looks at Mark Shapiro's five best and worst moves in his nine years running the Indians. The list is pretty much what we'd expect -- the hits are all trades, except for Grady's contract extension in '06, while the Hafner extension leads the misses.
almost 2 years ago
Buckeye Brad
177 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
That commenter defending the Westbrook extension has a familiar tone.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 18, 2010 11:29 PM EST reply actions
Left this comment:
The Westbrook deal may be a “miss,” but I think it’s more appropriately characterized as a “tough error.”
The idea of saving nickels for Sabathia and Lee doesn’t really make sense. The Indians fell about $66 million short on Sabathia, not $33 million, and that was due to a sensible view of value and risk — not because they lacked the cash. As for Lee, at the time Westbrook’s deal was extended through 2010, Lee was already under club control through 2010.
Let’s try to come up with some more hits and misses. What are the big ones?
A few more big hits:
- Extension for Sabathia — 2 years, $17.5 million. Rather than losing Sabathia mid-2006, we kept him through mid-2008. His value skyrocketed over those two seasons, and he fetched a far better return in his 2008 trade than he would have two years earlier. Along the way, the Indians got a Cy Young campaign in 2007 that led the club to the game’s best record.
- Offering Casey Blake arbitration for 2008 rather than non-tendering him. They had to agree to play a pretty marginal starter $6.1 million, but they got a pretty good season out of him … and then traded him for Carlos Santana. Cha-ching!
- Locking up Travis Hafner after one breakout season. How much would Hafner have earned in arbitration in 2006, after his 2004-2005 compaigns? How much would he have been awarded in 2007, after his best-hitter-in-baseball performance in 2006? Answer: A lot more than the total of $6.5 million they paid him for those two seasons.
- Not selling low on Cliff Lee after the 2007 season.
- Picking up Ron Belliard off the scrap-heap for 2004, then signing him to a sweetheart deal for 2005-2006. Total guarantee: $4.1 million. Total spent: $6.2 million. Total marginal wins: 7.5.
- Minor league deal for Bob Howry, January 2004. Howry reached the majors on June 29. By the end of 2005, he’d appeared in 115 games with a 166 ERA+ and a 3.1 K:BB ratio. He was paid a little over $1 million.
- Traded Robbie Alomar in the ridiculously slim moment in time between an MVP-caliber season and his abrupt descent into fringe-player territory.
Imagined Trade MIss
Not getting Wade Davis and Brandon Morrow for Phifer. (actually, non-sarcastically, I think the Lee trade will go down as a miss anyway)
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Why does he get credit for not non-tendering Blake? Was that really a risk after the 2007 season?
And Westy’s right—gotta have the KMTS in there.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 19, 2010 6:23 AM EST up reply actions
Great call on not selling low on Lee. Quentin doesn’t look like he’ll be anywhere near as valuable as he was in 2008.
Steel Nick
I suppose in this specific case, we don’t, but there had to be an opportunity to sell him for pennies on the dollar.
Steel Nick
HIT: Borowski, 2007.
MISS: Borowski, 2008, though it didn’t turn out to matter much.
HIT: Raffy Betancourt — acquisition, promotion, usage, trade, kit & caboodle. One of my very favorite small memories from 2007 was Iron coming back out for the ninth in the division clincher, and my just thinking, hell, yeah.
HIT: Paul Byrd? Kevin Millwood? I know they don’t seem like all that much, but I think the last five years look pretty bleak without their contributions.
HIT: Franklin Gutierrez. Could very easily have been just another smooth-fielding K-artist washout, but the Indians managed to make him look good enough to move. It was a fair trade, not a wipeout, but my feeling is that it was responsible asset management. And if it wasn’t selling at the peak, it was at least a win in terms of positions of need and years of service.
HIT: Ryan Garko. Much the same at Guti. I’m irrationally excited about Barnes’s future, but wowza what a quietly ridiculous trade.
MISS: Dellichaels.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
I’d like to think we’ll talk about the Victor trade in hushed tones someday, too.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
I missed that, although I think there’s a case to be made for some kind of conglomerate “little hits” category. The organization seems to grade out pretty well on of the marginal moves, and while I don’t think we should go nuts over mere competence, I can look at some more dysfunctional teams and take comfort in it.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
wait, we’re considering the gutierrez trade a “hit” now? how is that?
IMO, that’s a huge “miss.” completely failed to maximize his value while he was here, and then decided to move him before the market for defensive players blew up (if that has even happened yet).
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
I was a Gutierrez fan from the day we acquired him, but I disagree that he had a long-term future here. He just doesn’t seem like enough of a threat against right-handed pitching to merit the playing time he’d need to get for a team to capitalize on his defensive prowess.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
Meant to add, and I disagree that we moved him too early. Too late sounds more likely to me. Who’s to say that Jack Z doesn’t mark the zenith of the market for defense? And if Gutz had gotten hurt — his injury history isn’t exactly spotless — we might’ve had to pursue a second baseman with one of our later trades, at the expense of acquiring more pitching. No, as I think about it, I’d say the timing was at least okay, if not good.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
hmm. we’ll have to see whether teams follow the rays/mariners philosophy of winning through defense to know whether the move was premature. i still think we misused him while he was here. it’s not like we’ve ever had a mashing LFer forcing grady into CF and gut onto the bench.
meant to ask you—are you still going to UT law (that’s you, right?)? i’m actually going to be working at a firm in toledo this summer with a UT law student, and i just remembered you went there.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Ah, LGT: forum, melting pot, interactive public autobiography. Yeah, I graduated last year. Shoot me an email if you’re in the mood — tylerpatrick at gmail.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
sounds good man, maybe we can grab a beer or something (i’ve heard that this hot shotz club is a really nice, classy establishment. . .) oh, and sorry for being a creeper, haha.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
What happens at Hot Shotz stays at Hot Shotz.
Unless you get shot.
by fleerdon on Feb 20, 2010 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, he’s nothing special. he just lead all of baseball in UZR, and was better than the next best guy by ten points (or whatever unit UZR is measured in).
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
Meh. Can’t really hit, not likely to develop any more as a hitter and we got a player who has a chance to be very good.
i don’t understand the valbuena love. by any measure, he was a terrible fielder this year, and his bat doesn’t project to be anything special. unless you were talking about joe smith?
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
Smith is already good. Valbuena wasn’t great but he was far from terrible. His bat projects to be really good for an up the middle player. Gutierrez is a tremendous fielder who is capable of posting a league average OPS+ if all breaks well. We didn’t need that then, we don’t need it now. Good trade.
smith is good at what he’s supposed to do—get right-handers out.
valbuena was pretty bad defensively this year. i mean, not dan uggla bad, but he was a pretty crummy fielder, according to both UZR and the new BP annual. every scouting report i read on the guy pegged him as below average in the field, so this isn’t exactly a surprise. won’t comment on the bat other than i don’t see why people get so excited about the guy—yeah, he’s flashed some plate discipline, but he’s got a long ways to go to be starting-caliber.
can’t agree that it was a good trade, in part because i’m not convinced either valbuena or smith will stick. i also don’t buy into the argument that we didn’t “need” gutz—we could have used him, especially since we haven’t had a real left fielder in years. i think an arrangement where gutz plays CF and sizemore plays LF wins us more game than the addition of valbuena and smith, but i guess we’ll have to wait and see.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 20, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
You think Gutierrez can hit well enough to merit a consistent starting position but can’t see why people might be excited about Valbuena’s bat?
he’s 24, with a career wOBA of .308. PECOTA projects a .249 EqA for this season, and lists his comparables as guys like jon nunnelly, brian kowitz, and troy o’leary. the fangraphs projections aren’t that bullish either. what is it about all this screams “special bat”?
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 20, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
- mean to say “that screams ‘special bat’”
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 20, 2010 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
Is that his major league wOBA? His first 450 plate appearances?
Frankly, if he develops Troy O’Leary’s bat, I’d be pretty happy.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 20, 2010 4:33 PM EST up reply actions
More of this for me is that I don’t see Gutierrez as a significant talent. There are worse things than a middle infielder projected to hit like Troy O’Leary. One of those things is an outfielder that hits like a middle infielder.
I don’t see Gutierrez as a significant talent.
I’m curious: who do you see as “a significant talent” on this team?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
this is beyond old.
grady f’ing sizemore. the reason gutz was expendable in the first place.
the site is still called Let’s Go Tribe is it not?
chuck, the indians suck. now go away and let me root for them in peace.
by Brick. on Feb 21, 2010 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 12 recs
Asdrubal Cabrera, Matt Laporta, Kerry Wood, Shin-Soo Choo, Travis Hafner, Tony Sipp, Joe Smith, Carlos Santana (assuming we see him this year). That’s just the ML roster. All of those players are better than Gutierrez right now. We have many more on the cusp. He’s a defensive specialist who hits like one. We don’t need that now.
Probably? No. All the projection systems see a mild regression for him. Coming off an outlier season pointed in the same direction as the age curve, the regression tends to be a larger force than the next year of aging.
No, what’s the fellow’s name playing second base.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 20, 2010 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, Peralta’s on third. I’m just trying to figure out, what’s the name of the guy playing second base?
You know, the first time I ever heard that routine it was done by Alvin Dark and Ken Harrelson on an Indians pre-game show. They were in uniform in the dugout and they nailed it.
One of those guys has gone way downhill since.
well, last year we had mark derosa, and traded mid-season for jason donald. we moved shoppach, lee, francisco, martinez, garko, betancourt, and derosa last year, and we could have targeted a middle infielder in one of those trades as well.
obviously we acquired valbuena before making any of those moves, but i don’t think that the FO planned on making him our 2009 starter anyways—we were supposed to be trying to win the division. in other words, we didn’t have to grab him to fill a short-term need, and there were other options that presented themselves as the season progressed.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 20, 2010 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I know, but who plays second base now?
You’re saying we win more games with Sizemore-LF and Gutierrez-CF, but that statement is meaningless unless you complete the picture. What do we have to give up in order to get a second baseman in that scenario?
My guess would be Asdrubal, as the shift to SS wouldn’t even have been considered. Leading to a Marte/Barfield/Gimenez/Garko/Choo/Hafner/Westbrook platoon at 3rd, if Wedge were still around. But given he isn’t, I’d assume Marte would then man 3rd.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
we probably would have made a stronger push to get orlando hudson this offseason, meaning that branyan likely does not sign.
given the fact that the FO has been pretty active on the 2b/MI front, I’m not totally sure how well “now” fits valbuena in their eyes. i’m a fan of his, and i totally agree with trading gutz, but i’m not totally sure how to take their (orgaganization) posturing regarding the 2b situation. they’ve acquired two MI’s this offseason to add to Jason Donald. it’s my opinion that they’re hoping one of the three can offer a platoon partner for valbuena. they also attempted to acquire a veteran 2b who would have taken AB’s from Valbuena. these indicate to me that valbuena is not their “now” guy. however, acta stated over the weekend that “Luis Valbuena enters camp as the everyday starter at the spot”. to me, actions speak louder than words here.
by clusterchuck on Feb 22, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
It really might help if you knew what unit it was measured in. You know, so you could contextualize its value along with hitting performance, which in Gootz’s case in 2009 is both (a) not quite amazing, and (b) not yet proven he can do it again.
meh, the point is not so much that gut is a great player. the point is that we didn’t get much of a return for the guy, and we didn’t maximize his value while he was here.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
I’m with you. there’s still a lot of upside to this deal; especially if smith can help to shore up the pen.
by clusterchuck on Feb 20, 2010 1:08 AM EST up reply actions
He’s not a great player. He’s a great fielder. There is a huge gulf between Franklin Gutierrez and being an all around great.
i wasn’t trying to say that he was a “great player.”
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 20, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
I think I value Gutz properly. I like him a lot. I don’t dislike the trade at all.
So no miss there.
Steel Nick
But in what context? We were forced to trade Gutz because he had value. Not because we “gave up on him”. We had a surplus in the OF and he was used to bolster our bullpen. I’m sure we would have gladly traded Francisco instead if the Mariners wanted him.
Not because we "gave up on him". We had a surplus in the OF and he was used to bolster our bullpen.
Not sure I agree with this. We gave him a full year in the outfield at an age where he should have been able to produce, and his bat was awful. We couldn’t afford to take the chance that he would be that bad again. We had a surplus of crappy, platoon level at best outfielders, and couldn’t keep them all on the roster. I do agree we probably would have shipped Francisco over instead.
by dgcambridge on Feb 19, 2010 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
Nobody was willing to give us Smith + Valbuena for Francisco. Gutierrez is an everyday player for a team that needs a CF. Francisco is a throw-in.
In retrospect, I should have been much happier about the Lee trade.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 20, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
I think it’s too soon to evaluate the trade.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 20, 2010 2:12 PM EST up reply actions
I’m also obsessed with defense these days.
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 20, 2010 2:13 PM EST up reply actions
I intended to evaluate it the same way Jay evaluated the Alomar trade: by whether it was a good idea when Shapiro did it. I’d argue that it was.
We had a right-handed center fielder with superlative defensive talents but some non-insignificant injuries and a lousy platoon split (approaching arbitration, no?), on a team with two superior hitters (and baserunners) in center and one of the outfield corners. If there was a way to maximize Frank’s value in trade, it was to move him at the peak of his health and defensive prowess (check), before arbitration (check) to a team that placed a premium on defense and was willing to live with the 85 OPS+ vs. RHP (check, check), and to get Omar Minaya involved somehow (check).
As to the return, well, we didn’t have any near-ready middle infielders, and the bullpen has been a long-standing weakness of the club. Shapiro moved in the direction of addressing both issues with two cost-controlled guys and a bunch of years of service. The proof’s in the pudding, nobody disputes that; but at least in the abstract I think you have to admit the trade reflected a sound approach.
by fleerdon on Feb 20, 2010 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
*non-insignificant injury history
Wow, do I ever sound like a ponce.
by fleerdon on Feb 20, 2010 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
This is excellent.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 21, 2010 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
pretty weak return on that alomar trade though. i think alex escobar is generally considered one of shap’s biggest “misses.”
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Another injury-related miss though which seems to be a theme. Is Shapiro a victim of terrible luck? Or did we do a poor job of evaluating injury risks over the years?
i’m conflicted on this as well. injuries in position players are obviously unpredictable—even more so than pitchers. but the end result of that trade was not good.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
That’s the problem, we’re mixing actions that were either smart or dumb based on the information available with transactions that turned out particularly well or poorly.
Those are two different lists, with plenty of overlap, and the hard work is separating them. It’s a little odd to blame Shapiro for someone like Escobar, or credit him with someone like Howry. That’s because I assume that every team wanted Escobar at that time, and every team brings in spring training invites like Howry.
by dgcambridge on Feb 19, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
That’s why I tried to include Betancourt’s development and usage. Otherwise you’d be digging up all the Danny Graveses.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
This has me worried for the slew of newly acquired pitchers if the latter is the case.
by Chief WaDrew on Feb 21, 2010 3:29 AM EST up reply actions
I think our medical staff has dramatically improved in reputation since then?
by Gradyforpresident on Feb 21, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions
and that’s keeping in mind that Matt Lawton was also included in that deal, AND that Lawton was quickly signed to an extension.
Before taking Pro-Acta, please consult your doctor. Do not taunt Pro-Acta.
Miss
Creating a “partnership” with Wedge
by Roger Dorn on Feb 19, 2010 8:47 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think unanticipated injuries should qualify for the “misses” list so I’d replace the Westbrook extension with the Luke Scott for Jeriome Robertson deal. Robertson was absolutely worthless.
This may be my lack of interest in teams other than the Indians, but I don’t know who Luke Scott is.
At a quick glance … Garko has a 15-point lead in average, but Scott has a 50-point lead in slugging. Scott has a substantial edge in baserunning and defense. Scott is approximately as good as the morons think Garko is.
by Jay on Feb 19, 2010 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m assuming Scott’s defensive contributions are greater. But like Garko this year, until last year Scott was working for near the league minimum – making him relatively valuable. He got a $2M raise last season (0.4 > 2.4M) and another $1.6M raise this season ($4.0M)…making him relatively less valuable. Like Garko.
I didn’t mean to make a specific statement about Garko vs. Scott – only that I would group them into a similar category of players who are nice to have around while they are cheap, and progressively less nice to have around as they value up.
MISS: pre-2008 drafts. that’s basically all you need to say.
If you don't respect Aaron Laffey, I will fight you.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Feb 19, 2010 12:27 PM EST reply actions
I’m not going to make a Battleship joke. But I want to.
by fleerdon on Feb 19, 2010 2:29 PM EST reply actions
Has everyone already forgotten how Trot Nixon single-handedly saved the 2007 season by his veteran presence?
HIT
Doesn’t he really fall into the bad luck/injury category with Alex Escobar?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Feb 19, 2010 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t know where else to put this, so what the heck.
I saw Shelley Duncan this morning on Second Avenue. And you know what? The SOB was wearing a Yankees t-shirt.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 20, 2010 12:52 PM EST reply actions
After texting several of my friends—fans of all stripes—the winning response was: “Give me his exact location so I can tell Jonny Gomes”
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 20, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
I can’t remember if he’s on the 40-man, but if he is, make him the one to go.
Also! I saw a guy at the HOF in Canton last month who looked like Justin and was wearing a yankee cap. I hope like heck it wasn’t him.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
By the time I remembered he was Cleveland property, he was already by me.
Actually, I had a massive case of bed head at the time. Had I had the presence of mind to grab my Indians hat on the way out the door, the encounter might have gone differently.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Feb 21, 2010 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
A guess a plus and minus type evaluation has some merit, but Shapiro’s charter is to acquire realatively cheap talent and fill in the holes with 2 or 3 high-dollar signings. Cheap talent means young, pre-arb players. There’s two ways to do this: trade high-priced or about to become high-priced quality players for prospects. Shapiro’s been one of the best ever at this. The other is to draft well. Shapiro’s been a disaster at drafting.
So in the end Shap’s got one big up and one big down. That sounds about right. Bottom line: just not good enough to get the Tribe in the WS.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
But he got us very, very close to winning a WS.
I often wonder how much you view of Shapiro would be different if the Indians had won one of those last three games against Boston in ‘07 (which was, of course, pretty much out of his control). They would have most certainly beaten the Rockies in the WS, and would that one game have vaulted Shapiro above John Hart and - gasp - Hank Peters in your hierarchy? I know they didn’t win the WS, but they got darn close and that should count for something. The GM can’t control what happens in Game 7 in the playoffs; the outcome is out of his hands by then. Getting the team there is his job.
by Buckeye Brad on Feb 20, 2010 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Getting the team there is his job.
Absolutely. Shapiro’s great strengths – acquiring outstanding talent on the cheap through trades – was critical in getting us to the brink of a championship. But now his achilles heel – the inability to draft outstanding talent – is what’s put us in our current predicament.
He did a masterful job of getting us to the brink of the pinnacle. His inability to re-stock the club through the draft has brought us to another, less palatable brink. Sure wish he coulda drafted a coupla studs. Things would be quite different now.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Irony in its strongest form.
When Shapiro took over for your beloved duo of Peters/Hart, he was left with a pretty crappy roster. Ergo the trade of Colon, et al. And he built this club to within one win of the WS. So why was it the Tribe was in such a bad way when Shapiro took over, the poor drafting of the regimes preceding him.
So if he was able to get us to the brink from that previous depth, what’s to say he can’t do it again?
I think, if you take a moment to read it with fresh eyes, that there is little to quarrel with in Chuck’s statement (this one) based on the facts.
I don’t think any of us would claim that a quadrennial trip to the brink is an adequate result for our Indians, and that is all that Shapiro has accomplished — not just based on some narrow, pithy reading of the facts, but based on the real quality of the organization. The way that he brought us from a minor low point in 2002 to a near-championship in 2007 was outstanding, but having said that, the organization’s failures on his watch are in fact the reason why we were not able to sustain a contender as we had a decade earlier. Yes, strength of competition was also an issue, but not as much as the inability to draft or build at least a mediocre bullpen.
Sorry, but I was alluding to the poor drafting of the Hart regime that put us in such a poor position in 2002.
Chuck is using a moving target as usual. He adores what Peters accomplished, which in what it boils down to it, is drafting 2 HOF and one excellent trade with SD. He actually didn’t draft that well, he got lucky with Thome and Manny is Manny. But the rest of the drafts were fairly average.
Hart, like Shapiro, was shrewd in his acquisition of talent, although he was actually allowed to spend money to do it as well. But Hart’s drafts were fairly mediocre as well, which is how Shapiro ended up with an aging bloated roster in 2002.
Shapiro didn’t need to start from scratch, but did have an uphill battle to climb. Again, his drafting early was pretty bad, but has gotten better the last 2 years (at least it seems that way now, but we won’t know for a few more seasons).
Basically all 3 GMs were bad at overall drafting, but Hart and Shapiro both got us to the postseason, something Peters wasn’t even close to accomplishing.
Hart arguably was not as good as Shapiro at signing third-tier starters. He hit a “silver rush” of sorts with Martinez and Hershiser but had pretty terrible results after those signings.
On the other hand, Hart put together a bunch of good-to-great bullpens, and Shapiro has not, to put it mildly.
The real flaw in Chuck’s thinking is his enthusiasm for Hall of Famers, and there are two big problems with centering your thinking that way. One problem is that a Hall of Fame career does not mean that you contributed any more to your original big-league club than a guy who fell well short. Just for an example, Carlos Baerga is not a Hall of Famer by any stretch of the imagination, but in terms of how he performed as a young player before reaching free agency, he was as good as any Hall of Famer in that specific window. Not to mention Lofton!
The fact that Manny and Thome and arguably Belle went on to build HOF resumes in their 30s, that didn’t help the Indians at all, so who cares?
The second big problem is that you can’t win by drafting a few Hall of Famers. Seattle, as I’ve often noted, had Griffey and A-Rod and Randy Johnson. They had a few other good players, too, but those three guys are just FRINGE Hall guys like Manny/Thome/Belle, they’re INNER CIRCLE dudes, first-ballot, no-brainers. And the Mariners won NOTHING with them.
Winning in baseball isn’t about having a few Hall of Famers, it’s about having a complete roster with no significant holes. A couple of six-WARP players isn’t as good as having ten three-WARP players, which gets you to 90 wins right off the bat. Our 2000 club had four borderliner HOF types, and that club wasn’t as good as our 2005 club, which arguably had none, and they both just barely missed the playoffs. The 2007 club was way better than the 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 clubs, though again, the HOFer count was much lower.
In this context, you can see that it’s crazy to give Peters all that much credit for teams that dominated 4-5 years after he departed the scene. He contributed a couple of key players to those future clubs, but nearly all GMs do that, and Hart contributed more than a dozen key players. The fact that Peters’ contributions included a couple of probably HOFers is really not all that relevant.
See also, Posnanski’s pet theory about “Championship Caliber Guys.”
by Jay on Feb 25, 2010 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting methodologies here. Great effort is expended to disprove Chuck’s assertions, to disprove his claims. Numbers are cited, and much emotion is put forth to shut him up, definitively. These are followed by complaints about moving targets and rational inconsistency. But Chuck and his detractors are playing two different games.
It’s not as if anyone can say Chuck has proved that Shapiro is inferior to Peters. But it’s an intriguing—if obviously controversial and purposefully provocative—assertion. Food for thought. I, for one, never thought about the history the way Chuck put it forth, and I have to admit there’s an elegance to it. Everyone else is huffing and puffing when Chuck makes such gnomic assertions. If you look past some of the rhetorical flourishes—Chuck isn’t being scientific at such moments—there’s a different way of looking at it. You can’t refute such insight (or suggestion). Which makes the reaction kind of misplaced, like strict regiments of Hessian redcoats out in the woods getting picked off by colonial snipers.
And, Jay, you neglected to mention Edgar Martinez, too. I think he might someday make it to Cooperstown, even as a DH.
Edgar certainly deserves mention alongside Belle as at least a borderline HOFer, since both were punishing hitters and neither contributed much of anything on defense. Plus, Edgar was drafted by Peters just as surely as Belle was.
In any event, this seems to strengthen my main point, which is that obsessing HOFers drafted/signed is a poor way to evaluate a GM, because contending has a lot to do with the accumulation of a certain depth of quality, and very little to do with having a few guys who go on to have highly impressive 15-year careers.
I guess I should apologize for a lot of the “expending” of “great effort,” because I’ve been meaning to make these points for weeks but just haven’t gotten around to it. I think it’s kind of a shame that so much of the discussion has centered around whether Peters’ staff acquired two HOF-type guys or three, because really, who cares? Seattle had four and it didn’t matter!
I think Chuck made a great point that we shouldn’t overlook Peters’ role in starting the turnaround that eventually Hart took to the heights. He made that point well over a year ago, however, and unfortunately for Chuck and Peters and Chuck’s point, Chuck has smeared it with the feces of hyperbole over and over again, so that now, instead of Peters having some solid spot in the (very small) pantheon of revered Indians executives … instead, he’s become an LGT punchline.
I ask you, doesn’t the man who drafted Wayne Gretzky deserve better than this?
Hyperbole, in these cases, has been an extremely effective rhetorical device.
That said, there’s no way Chuck had anything to do with the drafting of Gretzky, no matter what he claims.
And one more thing: what if Byner holds onto the ball and scores? what if Ehlo tips Jordan’s shot? what if Sipe throws it into the bleachers? better yet, what if Clarette doesn’t strip the ball and the Hurricanes score?
I’m sick of “what ifs”. How ‘bout a goddam championship around here? No wonder we’re the most “miserable city”.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
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.
