Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
we'd all love to see the plan

- John Lennon

Well, in this case you be the General Manager.

It's not brain surgery, right? We apply a few sabermetric principles, add in $100 million dollars of Ted's money and PRESTO! A 90 win team! Wham, bam, next case.

As they say in Missouri, show me.

I don't want your administrative plan. I don't expect you to put together a scouting budget. You don't have to decide when which cross checker looks at the which part of the country. You don't have to find a pitching coach for Lansing, or an area scout for Texas.

Just the plan for the major league team.

It's October 2007, and the Red Sox are having their parade. Get to work. What would you have done this off-season? (It goes without saying that  we won't take seriously ideas like trading Gustavo Chacin for Johan Santana)

Or, if you want to take the job at some more recent point in time, what would you have done since Opening Day? What would you do now?

How hard can it be?
Your Move | 53 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
92-93 - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 06:27 AM EDT (#184891) #
I would have signed Barry Bonds.
Magpie - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 06:34 AM EDT (#184892) #
For how much?
Magpie - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 06:43 AM EDT (#184893) #
And when? In the off-season, when Thomas is still here? If you're planning on using Bonds in LF, you'll need someone else as well. Bonds can't play 150 games. Keep Johnson and his $3.5 million? Sign someone cheap? And what happens to Stairs if Bonds and Thomas are both around?

And where does the money come from? Barry ain't signing for the minimum. He wants a lot of money, or he simply can't be bothered. Where do you save?

Dave Till - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 06:58 AM EDT (#184894) #
I'm awake early this morning (yay! insomnia!), and was thinking about this very subject.

If I were in charge of the Blue Jays, the first thing I'd do would be to lobby for a balanced schedule. It makes no sense to have a wild card and have teams play their divisional opponents more often. This puts the Jays - and the Rays and the O's - at an unfair disadvantage. The other teams would go for a balanced schedule, if it were offered to them; the Sox and Yanks are good road draws. (Back in the days of two divisions, the schedule was kept balanced for precisely this reason - everybody wanted a piece of the Yankees and their road revenue.)

The Jays would be considered a successful franchise if they had been playing in any other division in baseball - they would have won at least two division titles if they had been in the AL Central (which, geographically, isn't a ridiculous idea - they're the farthest west of the AL East teams).

(Side note: it will be interesting to see whether the Rays can break through and win anything in the AL East, now that they have all this young talent. I suspect that they might soon learn what the Jays have learned - this is one tough neighbourhood to live in.)

All the problems the Jays are facing are related to this problem. They realize that they have to overachieve in order to win. And they're trying too hard. Way, way too hard. This doesn't hurt team defense; defenders who work harder get to more balls, improve their positioning and footwork, and generally just get better. The Jays have wonderful team defense, except maybe for left field (Lind is average; Stewart has average range but a poor arm) and catcher (good at pitch calling, not so good at throwing out runners). And good defense leads to good pitching, which the Jays have.

(Side note 2: Vernon Wells had no business diving for that ball. It was a heroic effort, but a dreadfully poor percentage play. One single is not worth several weeks on the disabled list - or more, if he actually broke his wrist.)

But the hitters! They're pressing, especially with runners in scoring position. Everybody and their grandmother knows that the team isn't hitting in RISP situations; Jerry Howarth talks about it all the time, the beat writers use it as a constant theme in their columns, and the players themselves are daunted by endless arrays of zeroes. (What's fascinating about Scott Rolen is that he seems to be like a visitor from another culture - a happy place where hitters see the ball, hit the ball, and run the bases with joy. The question is whether he will be dragged down by the team; he'll probably just suffer another freak injury, and that will be that.) On those rare occasions when they manage to get a reasonable lead, and the pressure is suddenly relaxed, they all start hitting again; it happened last year, and it's happening this year.

And the front office and management are pressing too. They're making big changes every two weeks. Frank Thomas had a bad April, so out he went. Adam Lind had a bad week, so down he went. And Gibbons rides the hot hand in the bullpen, so key game situations are being handed to relative newcomers. All of these decisions are defensible; Thomas still hasn't a home run in Oakland, Lind was starting to flail helplessly at the plate, and the new pitchers are doing better than the old ones (mostly). But it adds to the sense of panic. Must win now! now! now! And this sense of panic leads to infield pop-ups with runners in scoring position.

If it were my move, I don't know what I'd do. If the Jays make trades, there will be a net loss of talent; anyone who leaves the Jays to go elsewhere may wind up in a place where there is less pressure, and will likely hit better. And any new players, or new managers, or new general managers, would still face the same pressure, and the same unfair odds. I think the solution may well be existential: J.P. and J.G. should just tell the players that sometimes life sucks and the good guys don't always win. I'd say go out and have fun, see the ball and hit the ball; whatever will be, will be.

Longer-term: one thing I would like to know is how much of scouting and player development is just plain old luck. Until I know the answer to that question, I can't evaluate J.P. as a general manager. The Jays have had a number of prospects stall out at AAA; Josh Phelps and Russ Adams are two of the most obvious candidates. Would better scouting have predicted their lack of success, or was this just the luck of the draw? For years, I've (half-jokingly) said that J.P.'s greatest fault is that he just isn't lucky enough; maybe the Jays just need to figure out some way to placate the Baseball Gods. (Perhaps the Baseball Gods just don't like artificial turf.)

If the Jays do decide to replace J.P. though, I think I'd get the beat writers together to reach a consensus on their preferred candidate. That way, the new guy wouldn't face such constant criticism. "You picked him, dudes, so stop complaining."



robertdudek - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:03 AM EDT (#184897) #
Here is a starter list:

1) Find a farm director with a good track record and let them run the draft and farm. I will expect them to be accountable for the progress of our prospects.

2) I would ask Craig Burley and Kent WIlliams to come on board. Craig will be responsible for contract negotiations for existing and prospective Blue Jays (via free agency). He will be responsible for estimates of the expected value, in wins and in dollars, of a player's future contribution.

Kent will be there to discuss various team issues with me from a "baseball man's" perspective. I often find that when he and I synthesize our views about a particular player or issue, our understanding deepens.

3) I would hire Tom Tango, or if unavailable, the closest I can find to him,  to run sabermetic analyses on team related issues. The focus of this work will be to ferret out potential edges we can apply to building a better team than our competition. I would absolutely keep him away from the scouts - I want him to be a counterweight to the traditional observational mode of talent evaluation. Someone like Tango is much more technically adept than I am at doing sabermetric work, but I have done some of my own and I can "understand the discourse" pretty well.

4) I will hire a manager who has a solid understanding of the fundamentals of scoring and preventing runs. Among those that do, I will lean towards selecting the one I think will be able to deal with clubhouse issues in a productive way. I will also test each applicant's tactical ability by getting them to play a few seasons of Diamond Mind baseball.

I will make every effort to get the right people in the right jobs and let them do their work.



'

CaramonLS - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:12 AM EDT (#184903) #
Magpie in all honesty, you'd be one of the first guys I'd hire in my tenure as GM.  I'm actually pretty shocked (not joking) to find out that you don't think you could manage a team as good as JP does.  Sometimes I think that we forget that GMs are human and no matter how much education they have, that they can also be as dumb as the rest of us.  JP might be a baseball man, but he also has the fallacies and flaws that everyone does.  For that reason I think I'd be able to run a better team than he does.

JP has made some fundamental flaws during his tenure - which has really wrecked this team.  He locks up above average guys for high prices - Wells will continue to be the biggest black mark on his tenure for the duration of this contract.  I called it the day he was signed, I was calling for him to be dealt away with a year left on his deal - he should have been dealt to the Angels for a package of Kotchman, Wood + a pitcher (likely Saunders or Santana at the time) - yes, this is really easy for me to say Magpie, because you can deny it out of hand and ask me if you know what was on the table.  Of course I don't.  But this was probably something reasonable given Kotchman's struggles (FYI I believe he would turn it around) and Santanas/Saunder's questions.

You need to pay elite money to elite players.  Nothing less, nothing more.  Nothing inbetween, because they are replaceable with prospects.  You can replace Wells hitting by moving Rios to CF and adding someone to replace him in RF.  Sure the defense suffers a little, but your overall WPA will increase adding a stronger bat.  You need that kind of stuff pushing your guys in the minors - another failure of the JP legacy - perhaps not giving Rogers a good enough reason to draft overslot - who knows, but that is a reality of the game now and the Jays have to deal with it or fail.

I really am shocked Magpie, I think you'd make a solid manager or guy upstairs helping out the GM.  You could manage on paper better than Gibbons ever could - that is a stone cold fact.  But perhaps it is having the combination of brains and confidence in your abilities (or ignorance in some cases) which can make someone a success or failure.

JustinD - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:14 AM EDT (#184904) #
I would have signed Milton Bradley and Fukudome. Pushed hard for the Lincecum-Rios deal, including prospects if I had to. I would then deal Burnett for some nice package, if it was out there. If not, keep him and the draft picks we get when he leaves. I realize that Fukudome is no guarantee to sign here, JP might have even tried to get him. We don't really know. Without him, I wouldn't trade Rios. And without getting Lincecum, I wouldn't trade Burnett. So it's possible my only off season move would have been to get Bradley, but I still think we should have got him. I sure like his bat more than Mench or Wilkerson.
John Northey - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:15 AM EDT (#184905) #
Hmm... First I'd get a contract for myself that pays enough so whenever I get fired I can take a couple of years to find a new job :)
  • Find a way to evaluate scouts effectiveness and put it into place ASAP - scouting is right now probably the greatest unknown in baseball with the greatest potential of jumping a team from also ran to winner.  A top scout would be someone who can tell if a guy is likely to develop from a scrawny 18 year old into a Barry Bonds or into a Bobby Bonds Jr.  (250/328/375 lifetime in the minors).  Being able to tell would be worth, literally, millions to a team.
  •  For the Jays this past winter, I'd have gladly done the Rolen/Glaus deal and tried to get a minor leaguer tossed in from St Louis (no idea who was the stronger party going in).  I'd have tried to get the Hill/Rios deals but no idea if I could've.  Eck would not have been signed, or if signed would've been for no more than $2 million.  Scutaro I'd not have bothered with or would've not signed for 2 years.  Stewart I'd have ignored.  Barajas I'd have taken but for under $1 million (he was desperate by then).  I'd have talked with Thomas in the winter about how he felt about splitting his DH duties with Stairs, been sworn at, then would've done whatever I could to get rid of him and once gone talked with Bonds agent to see what he wants/needs - if reasonable (under $5 mil plus incentives for MVP, World Series MVP, etc.) then sign him with Stairs/Johnson in LF and looking for a right handed bat to compliment Bonds and Overbay at a low (sub-$2 million) pay.
  • Lind would've started in AAA ala JP, but if called up would've been given minimum 2 weeks to show something, ideally a full month.  Diaz would not have seen ML action if at all possible.  I'd have chased down Phelps for AAA and got him more catching time as he'd be very valuable as a right handed bat especially if he could catch as well as 1B/DH.  If my scouts said Adam Everett was healthy I'd have looked into signing him (slightly better version of McDonald). 
I'd be pushing for cash for drafting and minors more than majors, but also pushing for extra ML cash.  I'd go after the biggest impact free agents or AAAA guys ala Zaun.

Dewey - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:39 AM EDT (#184908) #
"I will also test each applicant's tactical ability by getting them to play a few seasons of Diamond Mind baseball."

Amazing!  Dudek, you really do inhabit fantasy land.  As a longtime member (now ex-member) of SABR, I'm amused by your faith in "sabremetric principles" (as if anyone can agree just what those are.)   It's hard to decide whether the arrogance or the ignorance in some of these cocksure claims predominates:  they usually go together though.  I don't mean simply your preposterous claims, but those of everyone with easy on-paper solutions to problems whose nature they only glimpse.  Fantasy baseball.  Happy gaming, fellas.
Mike Green - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:44 AM EDT (#184909) #
Hey, Mags, first you sneak in on Hall Watch and now You Be The Manager.  Are you angling for a job on the minor league beat too?  My shoes are small but someone's got to fill them. :)

I wouldn't have done much differently from what Ricciardi has done on the player side since the end of 2007.  I would have kept Reed Johnson and Lind to platoon in left-field to start the season.  I would have told Frank Thomas that he had the choice of being platooned or traded during the off-season (probably for not much).  I would not have signed Marco Scutaro, and would probably have chosen Inglett over Stewart for the last spot on the roster.  The 14 position players when everyone is healthy would now be: Barajas, Zaun, Overbay, Hill, Eckstein, McDonald, Rolen, Johnson, Lind, Wells, Rios, Stairs, Mench and Inglett.  That would mean that Velandia would currently be the shortstop.  Not everything works out well.  I would have had discussions with Gibbons about using Jason Frasor, but otherwise, I feel that no changes were necessary to the pitching staff. There is no guarantee that my plan would have worked out much better than Ricciardi's.

If you go back to the 2005 draft, I would have chosen Maybin over Ricky Romero, not traded Hudson for Glaus, chosen Snider in 2006 and Purcello and Kozma in the first round in 2007. With Maybin in the fold, I would have traded Vernon Wells (perhaps for a third baseman) and moved Rios to centerfield, rather than signing Wells to the long-term contract.  I would have made Hill and Hudson my double play combination, and signed Rios to a long-term contract a year earlier.  Would this all have worked?  Geez, I don't know.  I believe that the Hill/Hudson/Rios combination would have provided good offence and defence down the middle of the diamond, but not everyone shares that view. 

One of the problems, of course, is that Rogers has apparently mandated that Ricciardi not spend over slot.  With that (in my view ridiculous) constraint, I would have chosen Tulowitzki over Romero.  I am not positive who I would have chosen in 2007 with those constraints, but Arencibia would not have been one of them.  However, with the development of Tulowitzki, it would have probably worked out OK.



ayjackson - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:49 AM EDT (#184910) #

I would have signed Milton Bradley and Fukudome. Pushed hard for the Lincecum-Rios deal, including prospects if I had to.

Priceless.  But why stop there?  I would have traded for Nate McLouth, Ervin Santana and Carlos Quentin - all on the cheap.   

jerjapan - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#184911) #
My plan would be the same now, in the off season, during the season last year, and pretty much as far back as I could go. 

REBUILD.

This is a team that refuses to retool despite a large number of intriguing assets that other teams would pay a premium for - Burnett would've been worth a solid package of prospects last season.  Scott Downs was coming off a career year and will only get more expensive, look at the package Milwaukee gave up to pick up Linebrink as an example of the high price paid for relievers.  Furthermore, we have a surplus of relief talent being wasted while we struggle to score runs (Tallet and Frasor could fill any void left by Downs, and who cares if they produce at a lesser level - the package received in exchange would more than make up for it). 

Look at the fabulous job Billy Beane did last season - actually improving his team while improving long range and saving money.  Wells would've been tough to deal (the previous poster who stated Wells should never have been signed was spot on) but Rios would've commanded more of a return than Swisher.

Restock with minor league gambles (again look at Oakland with Foulke and Sweeney contributing on minor league contracts), top AAAA free agents and big bucks spent on drafting.  Or bring in Bonds (if Rios is dealt) accept a terrible outfield defense and try to catch lightning in a bottle.

And I would've tried Wolfe out as a starter - again to take advantage of the surplus of relief talent.



ayjackson - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#184912) #

I would have told Frank Thomas that he had the choice of being platooned or traded during the off-season (probably for not much).

I've suspected that this was actually not far from the case - that he was told to make sure he gets off to a good start or he will lose at bats to Stairs.  That's why he came into camp early and in great shape.  He also was in the lineup a lot more often early in camp than last year.

grjas - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:00 PM EDT (#184913) #
What would you have done this off-season?

Too late now.

The more interesting question is if Wells goes down for an extended period of time, what would you do now? I know it sounds too early to throw in the towel, but seriously, no Thomas, no Wells, Scutaro at SS plus the rest of this line up...

In that eventuality I would start looking for some big trades. Bait: AJ, a lefty, Overbay, Stairs maybe Lind. Targets: young guys with power at 1st and LF, a SS that can actually both hit and field. 

There is also the fire sale option but I don't think there is enough depth in the minors at this point to go young. Would be many more years in the wilderness, but hey we're used to it.  As my 20 year old daughter just said: "the Jays.. they always sucked."  The memories of glory are distant, and only in us old guys.
AWeb - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:01 PM EDT (#184914) #
Going in to the offseason : Stairs/Johnson, Wells, Rios in the OF, Lind in AAA; Glaus, McDonald, Hill, Overbay in the IF, no viable MLB-calibur backup at any position; Zaun/?? at Catcher; Pitching staff drunk with riches.

First, I'd love to make the Glaus/Rolen deal. I don't know is St. Louis called first or Toronto did, but if offered, I take it. I like the Eckstein signing - but only when made clear that MCDonald gets 2-3 starts a week when groundballers are on the mound, and he comes in late. From the number crunching just done here after the signing, I thought it was pretty clear the Eckstein's bat and defense represented only a marginal upgrade over McDonald's "bat" and defense. Gibbons gets brought in on this, and it's made clear what the strategy is. I probably don't sign another middle infielder for backup purposes - if two of three top guys get injured at once (and how likely is that to happen...oh wait), we suffer through whatever the minors are able to provide. I leave Overbay at first, content that Stairs can fill in if he never returns to form.

In the OF, I don't change anything unless I can make a major upgrade. No picking at the edges, looking for an exrta win or two at best. If I can't find a large upgrade, there's no point to making a deal. Bonds would be a major upgrade in LF, remove the need for Stairs (I'll find another backup firstbaseman), and certainly put my stamp on the "AWEB" era - winning comes first, and that means the best players. Johnson still gets to start in LF against a few lefties (and when Bonds is injured for I figure 50 games or so) and be a late-inning runner/defense guy after another Bonds walk.

Thomas I keep, but play only against lefties. Bonds gets to DH against a lot of righties. If Thomas doesn't like it, I get rid of him. A trade for a bullpen arm, or minor league insurance in the IF.  I assume Thomas can accept sharing time with Bonds and trying to win the division. If he can't, I find a right-handed bat who can mash lefties but little else (not exactly hard or expensive to find someone)

Catchers, I keep Zaun, and let Diaz/Thigpen compelte for the backup job.

So now I'm starting:
Bonds/Johnson, Wells, Rios in the OF, Stairs backup. Lind in AAA second backup (and nuts to his costs 3 years from now, he comes up first time we need him).
Rolen, Eckstein/McDonald, Hill, Overbay in the IF, Stairs and  McDonald/Eckstein backup.
Zaun and Diaz at catcher (minor leagues for next guy).
Thomas/Bonds at DH. If not Thomas, then another lefty-mashing only bat.

That's 13 position players. Maybe I throw Scutaro the same contract he already got, since I only want an 11 man staff.

Starters: Halladay, McGowan, Burnett, Marcum, Litsch. Lots of minor league options in case of injury
Bullpen: I probably have Ryan out another month or so, but Accardo, Tallet, Downs, Frasor, Wolfe, League can hold down the fort. I probably don't sign Carlson, but I have someone on staff to advise me on passable bullpen arms that can fill in when injuries/ineffectiveness hit (Wolfe, League, Accardo). When Ryan returns, I demote whoever I can.

I am proably spending  bit more money than the ownership wanted, but they are saving a lot of money on the GM, since a semi-anonymous internet commenter will sign for surprisingly little to do the job.

I'm also re-starting the once legendary Blue Jays pipeline into the Caribbean. Let's go looking for some rough diamonds again. And no more slot money drafting. Screw Selig, we're picking the best player possible.
SheldonL - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT (#184915) #
Interestingly, Wilkerson has hit lefties better in his career.
Oddly enough, what's preventing from him becoming an every day player is the fact that he can't hit righties!
That makes me laugh...

Meanwhile, I'm absolutely stoked to see Mench bat vs. lefties, he's a lefty killer!
I like the Mench/Stairs platoon DH format, awesome!

That sorta makes Stewart's place on the team redundant! Presumably, he and Wilkerson will platoon to BOTH face lefties since Wilkerson hits them well. Then they'll BOTH face righties too?

I think JP need to get on his horse and find us a lefty-bat to play LF and FACE righties!
parrot11 - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT (#184916) #

I see 2 paths that the Jays can take to put them in position of having a legit shot at grabbing the wild card:

1)  Hope that AJ opts out and try to dump Overbay on someone at the trade deadline (hopefully he bounces back somewhat to make this a more realistic possibility). Use that money saved, plus a little extra to sign proven all star talent (e.g. Teixeira) and deal with this pertetual hole at SS. If the Jays are going to spend money, it can't be on these risky guys like AJ, Glaus, Thomas, and others. That has not worked, nor do I think it's a dependable strategy to employ when dealing with that amount of cash.

OR

2) Blow this whole team up. This is the strategy I'm more in favor of doing, but that I don't see happening. And by blow this thing up, I mean strip it bare: trade Rios, Wells (the team will need to eat a big chunk of that contract), Hill, Halladay (which is the one guy I would hate to see go elsewhere), Marcum, McGowan, Ryan, Rolen (some more salary eating), AJ, Accardo, Downs, etc for prospects. This team has alot of trade chips, which would help to dramatically accelerate the rebuilding process. This team would not be starting from ground zero, they'd be given a nice headstart. All the prospects they got back, plus getting early picks in subsequent drafts should mean that this team would be in a position to contend in probably 3 years. As currently constituted, this team will never come close, and guys like Halladay are not going to maintain that level of performance for much longer. Perpetually circling around the .500 mark doesn't really do it for me. To get this done, I would hire two guys using whatever amount of money needed (and alot will be needed to take this job): Terry Ryan (who quit due to burnout) and Logan White (who is one of the best draft gurus in the business). I think you would have to make Ryan the president and White the GM for them to come here. I think in this situation that ownership is a huge plus. They shown themselves to be remarkably patient (in many markets, JP would have been turfed a long time ago) and are willing to spend the money that the GM as for. I would give him free reign to spend what they think was needed in the draft and international amateur signings. That is where I would focus my money while the payroll is down.

If this team keeps spending big money on guys with alot of uncertainty productivity-wise, I think this band-aid solution will just keep this team where they are and where they've always been. Either strategy should include significant increase in spending in the draft and on international amateur talent.

SheldonL - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#184917) #
whoa, whoa, blow up the team? wait a second, we're only 5 games out, we're second in the division, it's a long season!

btw, I think we've found the righty masher we're looking for in............. Jim Edmonds!
He provides superior defense, a walk-producer, and as a lefty bat, we give him a shot to prove that he can still hit. I think he can, a couple of years ago, he batted .295 and slugged over .500 vs. righties.
A platoon with him and Stewart or Wilkerson would be one that I'd be curious to see....

Having Rolen and Eckstein around will certainly help make him more comfortable; and as for urgency/team leadership, he brings the Cards recent playoff experience...
DO IT, JP!
parrot11 - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:41 PM EDT (#184918) #
I'm not using this season as the basis of coming to the conclusion to blow this team up, but a history of what this team is and the roster. This team is nothing better than a few games over .500. The good GM's are able to evaluate their teams and act accordingly. For example, Beane didn't think that his team was good enough to be a legit threat and traded some of his best players. That's one of the marks of a good GM.
ayjackson - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 12:43 PM EDT (#184919) #

He provides superior defense, a walk-producer, and as a lefty bat, we give him a shot to prove that he can still hit.

Apparently he can't hit, walk or get around the outfield anymore and was thus released by San Diego - who are in worse shape offensively than we are.

Lefty - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 01:00 PM EDT (#184920) #
Look if Ricciardi still likes his team, he should fire the manager and find someone who can drag some performance from this sleepy and lethargic bunch of fat-cats.
Wildrose - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 01:37 PM EDT (#184921) #
If I woke up this morning and found that Ted Rogers was  my long lost uncle and was willing to hand the keys to me personally, this is what I'd do:

A.) I'd tell him I could live with a median major league payroll, but I'd have to have a guarantee that the player development budget is  in the top five of baseball. Anything else and your setting yourself up for perpetual mediocrity ( I'd find a place for Pat Gillick as an advisor emeritus).

B.) The team would be rebranded as Canada's team. To this end I simply would not accept being out scouted on my home turf and would spend the requisite resources, especially in the burgeoning lower mainland  market  to make this happen. On the MLB level I'd  try to obtain prominent Canadian free agents ( Jason Bay) , Blair has intimated that the Rogers suits may loosen the budgetary purse strings in this regard for marketing reasons.

C.) I'd spend some resources on the secondary, tertiary level of Japanese ball player such as Okajima, Kuroda and Iwamura. The pitchers in particular seem to be under-valued.

D.) The last untouched frontier in all of baseball is Cuba. Canada has  a long  mutually beneficial tourism and trade ( Sherrit Mines ) relationship with this country unlike the U.S. With a new sheriff  in town, Fidel's brother, now making some liberal changes, use our  advantage in this area to procure players. At some point the Cuban's are going to get tired of seeing many of their best players go over the fence and defect. Why not formalize the transition period to the benefit of both  parties.

E.) I'd game the draft in terms of draft slot money, why should we play by Bud's terms , when we've been screwed by being placed in our current division? 

F.) I'd absolutely have a sabermetric research capability within the organization, and more importantly utilize their findings.

Now back to reality.......

 

Mike Green - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 02:30 PM EDT (#184923) #
I've suspected that this was actually not far from the case - that he was told to make sure he gets off to a good start or he will lose at bats to Stairs.  That's why he came into camp early and in great shape.  He also was in the lineup a lot more often early in camp than last year.

There is a significant difference.  It is likely that Frank would have said "no" before the season and it all would have been resolved at a better time.  And if he said "OK" to a platoon, then the club could have comfortably lived with the situation.  This issue needed to be dealt with whether or not Thomas got off to a hot, cold or medium start.

A number of people have answered the question "what would you do going forward?", rather than "what would you have done differently?". 
parrot11 - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 02:51 PM EDT (#184926) #

A number of people have answered the question "what would you do going forward?", rather than "what would you have done differently?". 

Probably because that was the question being asked.

ayjackson - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 03:07 PM EDT (#184928) #

This issue needed to be dealt with whether or not Thomas got off to a hot, cold or medium start.

I disagree.  I`d rather like to see if Mr. Thomas is going to be hot, medium or cold before ditching him.

Mike Green - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#184929) #
 Most of the prospective answers have been about the long-term approach of the club, which I don't think addresses Magpie's challenge.  "Change the process" and "change the decision-makers" aren't really answers to Magpie's challenge, at least as I understood it.

Starting at draft day 2005 is probably better than October, 2007, for this purpose.

Wildrose - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 03:19 PM EDT (#184931) #
Or, if you want to take the job at some more recent point in time, what would you have done since Opening Day? What would you do now?

I think Magpie framed the question very well, giving people several ways to approach the issue.
Pepper Moffatt - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#184932) #
"The Jays would be considered a successful franchise if they had been playing in any other division in baseball - they would have won at least two division titles if they had been in the AL Central"

How can you conclude this at all.  Which 2 years?  2003 *maybe*.  What's the other year.. 2006?  Where they finished behind 3 AL Central teams and finished 9 games behind the Twins?   And the AL Central won 421 games to the AL East's 409?

I suspect you mean one of the years where the East was better than the Central.. like 2002, maybe?  Where the Jays finished *16* games behind the Twins?

If there is some evidence to this idea that pops up from time to time (that the Jays would be some hugely successful franchise if they weren't in the East), I would love to see it.
Wildrose - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#184933) #
If there is some evidence to this idea that pops up from time to time (that the Jays would be some hugely successful franchise if they weren't in the East), I would love to see it.

Well  really the only way to prove it is to move them out of the division. Basically it's common sense, you have the two biggest spenders in baseball in the same division who seem to have reasonable management, it seems one team may have a down cycle ( the Yankees this year ?), but to get two of them down in any given year doesn't seem to happen.  Evidence about inter division  strength  is very murky, the West beats up on the East, the East beats up on the Central, then the  West loses to the Central , go figure (at least that's how it all came out in the wash the last time I looked at it a few years back). I agree the other divisions are stronger than most imagine and the Jays would still be in tough, I still contend the A.L. East is one tough neighbourhood. I'd be glad to see some studies on this.( Also it's great to see you back making commentary Pepper).
Pepper Moffatt - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 04:12 PM EDT (#184934) #
Thanks for the kind words... appreciate it!  I lurk from time to time but generally don't feel the desire to post.

I don't think we would need to move the Jays to get an idea for the question.  I've never played a game of golf against Tiger Woods, but I can say with a lot of certainty that if we played head-to-head, he'd win.  Same thing here.

RE: Schedule.. an AL East team plays 72 games against other AL East teams and 35 games against AL Central teams.  So the difference is 37 games.

As a very-rough back-of-the-envelope type estimate, an average team might, on average, play .550 ball against a very weak division a .450 ball against a very strong division.  The difference there is .100 points, or 3.7 extra wins out of that 37 games.

How many times in the Ricciardi regime have the Jays finished less than 3.7 games behind the winner of the AL Central?  Zero.  The closest they came is 4 games back in 2003.

I can see how you can make the argument for 2003.  I think the odds they win in the AL Central in 2003 are under 50/50, but for the sake of argument, I'll buy it.  But where is this 2nd year?  And what if instead of moving the Jays to the Central, we move them to the West?

The Jays difficulty isn't that they play in the East instead of the Central.. the difficulty with the Jays is that, under Ricciardi, they've simply not been an AL-caliber playoff team.

(Now if you want to talk about moving them to the NL.. then you might have an argument)
ayjackson - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 04:18 PM EDT (#184935) #

The real GM has moved Wells to the DL with a broken wrist and Accardo to the DL with a forearm strain.

Wildrose - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 04:28 PM EDT (#184936) #
Wells to the DL with a broken wrist

Yikes!  Time to hold a spring garage sale, put a price tag on all the players ( well almost all) and start taking some reasonable offers.......
Glevin - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 04:33 PM EDT (#184937) #
For me, this off-season is not far enough to go back to make much of a difference. The core of the team is the problem, and the tinkering wouldn't have done much. I wouldn't have signed Stewart, would have traded Glaus for prospects rather than Rolen and chased after the guys I like. (Guys who hit in the minors but are never given a great chance in the majors or who are squeezed our like Quentin, Cust, Durazo, Lind, ...doesn't always work, but there are decent risks to take and then there are risks with no upside cough cough..Stewart). Going forward, I really would blow up the team. The only guy I would not trade would be Mcgowen and maybe Marcum. However, only Hallady and Rios would bring back anything substantial although a good couple of months of Rolen could net a top prospect or if the Jays were willing to eat some of Wells' contract, they could get something back.  The Jays need an entirely different core of players to compete.
robertdudek - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 05:34 PM EDT (#184947) #
Dewey ...

I was working on a thoughtful response to your "critique", but then I thought I will answer you in the general manner with which you did me:

Are you a professional stupid person, or do you just dabble in it?

parrot11 - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 05:42 PM EDT (#184949) #
robertdudek, no need to get personal. Dewey may have been a tad harsh in his criticism, but I think you went over the line. There's a difference between saying that what someone wrote was stupid (or whatever other word you choose to use) and saying that that person is stupid. I do agree with alot of your argument with the subject at hand, but try not to get personal and stay on topic (no matter how satisfying it is to write what you wrote).
vw_fan17 - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 06:23 PM EDT (#184955) #
For me, this off-season is not far enough to go back to make much of a difference. The core of the team is the problem, and the tinkering wouldn't have done much. I wouldn't have signed Stewart, would have traded Glaus for prospects rather than Rolen

Glevin - but what would you have gotten for an ailing 3B who had missed significant amount of time with a chronic injury? You might have gotten the equivalent of Adam Lind - or maybe not. Glaus was, IMHO, precariously close to an albatross. I think Rolen was a good gamble with the best available upside this side of Google stock on IPO day. And if he continues the way he has been (so far, he's hitting way better than Glaus ever did for us, plus good defense), he'll net WAY more than Glaus would have in the offseason. If he continues to put up 900+ OPS as well as good defense, we could get a top prospect, not someone's AAAA leftovers..
robertdudek - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 06:33 PM EDT (#184956) #
Dewey's response was a veiled personal attack (can you find any substantive reasoning there?). My response to his response was an unveiled personal attack. I like to be direct.

To Mike Green,

I took the liberty of "changing" the question. The question as asked is bound to get bogged down by 20/20 hindsight issues. It's easy to say NOW that the Thomas situation should have been handled differently, because the way it was actually handled was disastrous. It's easy to say NOW that Vernon Wells' contract is likely a mistake, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea at the time.

What is more interesting is the plans people may or may not have for running the team in the immediate future. For me, it is the process that is at issue here.

From my outside point of view, it appears that the way Ricciardi runs his operation is not drastically different than the way a typical GM has in similar situations (trying to build a winner on an average payroll). It does not seem to utilize much of the new objective knowledge about baseball that has been created over the past decade. I contrast this to the way that Oakland and Boston have been run (admittedly they are different situations, but it would be hard to make the case that these two organisations are not among the most successful and "cutting edge" management teams in the business).

Before his hiring by the Dodgers, Paul DePodesta made a speech, which was transcribed and appeared on the internet for a brief time, about how the Oakland A's had gone about competing within the limits of a small-budget team. He emphasized several times that it was the decision making process that counted. He was confident that as long as he had a better process than the other teams, he would succeed over time.

The issue is much larger than "Who should we acquire in trade?", or "Who should we draft in the first round?". The key to it all is to come to grips with the flaws in the approach and rectify them.

ChicagoJaysFan - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 06:58 PM EDT (#184960) #
Dewey's response was a veiled personal attack (can you find any substantive reasoning there?). My response to his response was an unveiled personal attack. I like to be direct.


This isn't kindergarten and "he started it" shouldn't be a valid reason for your prior comment.
robertdudek - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 07:01 PM EDT (#184961) #
Sometimes I think this is kindergarten. But then I think it would be an insult to kindergarten to compare it to this place.
Magpie - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 07:10 PM EDT (#184963) #
I think Magpie framed the question very well

Oh, I wasn't framing the question at all. My head was exploding.

But in terms of this here exercise, I think Robert's right in that there's no point whatsoever in looking back. It's easy to take the test after you know the answer. What is the way forward? I also like DePodesta's notion that if you put a superior process in place, in time you'll end up with superior results.

But in that case - has anyone had a superior process than John Schuerholz?
John Northey - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 07:26 PM EDT (#184967) #
Paul DePodesta - now there is a big question.  What if Paul DePodesta had decided to move east and work for the Jays in the winter of 01 instead of recommending JP for the job?  How different would the team be today - would it be better off or worse off?  Would Griffen's head have exploded? 
Leigh - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:13 PM EDT (#184971) #
I think that we may be grossly oversimplifying the gig.

I have never managed anything and I somehow doubt that I have the necessary experience/discipline/skill/whatever to do so at present (I frequently lose my keys, procrastinate on paying bills, and pull out the driver when I know that I should be laying-up with a mid-iron).  I don't know how to evaluate personnel, I don't do any original research, I tend to be consciously dogmatic rather than risk the inefficiencies associated with flailing about from position to position, I like to sleep in, I often sacrifice prudence in judgment for the sake of maintaining personal relationships... the list goes on.

Being the General Manager of a Major League team is a Big Important Job for a Big Important Guy.  One's willingness to substitute the judgment of cutting-edge research's Excel worksheets for one's own ideas, while admirable and (I would think) useful, cannot be the sole criteria for success.

Magpie - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:28 PM EDT (#184973) #
I have never managed anything and I somehow doubt that I have the necessary experience/discipline/skill/whatever to do so at present (I frequently lose my keys, procrastinate on paying bills, and pull out the driver when I know that I should be laying-up with a mid-iron).  I don't know how to evaluate personnel, I don't do any original research, I tend to be consciously dogmatic rather than risk the inefficiencies associated with flailing about from position to position, I like to sleep in, I often sacrifice prudence in judgment for the sake of maintaining personal relationships... the list goes on.

I don't lose my keys. Lost my wallet, though.
Dewey - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 08:34 PM EDT (#184974) #
Robert has cause to be angry with me.  I am at fault here to a considerable extent; and I take his attempt at a witty putdown as deserved.  (You can surely do better though, Robert.  Is *that* all you got?)  Actually I was annoyed by his citing 'sabermetric principles' as if they were at all clear, or agreed upon even by those who espouse them.  And to top it off,  by his apparently serious notion that a prospective managerial appointment should confirm his value by playing several rounds of a video game—that sent me over the top, so to speak.  I don't think Robert is stupid,  just wrong.  (But for someone disingenuously claiming never to have said JP is a bad GM [other thread], he's doing a pretty good hatchet job on him.  Is that what you mean by “being direct”, Robert?)  We're not likely ever to agree; and we should probably just ignore each other.  It's enough that we both enjoy the game, albeit very differently, it seems.  Ta ta.
Parker - Saturday, May 10 2008 @ 09:55 PM EDT (#184983) #

Being the General Manager of a Major League team is a Big Important Job for a Big Important Guy.  One's willingness to substitute the judgment of cutting-edge research's Excel worksheets for one's own ideas, while admirable and (I would think) useful, cannot be the sole criteria for success.

Now, I'm obviously not speaking from personal experience here, but being paid very well at a very enviable job does not necessarily mean that one is the best-qualified and most capable person available for the job.  As usual in our society, knowing the right people and being able to tell convincing lies is often more of a factor in getting the job than actually being good at it.  Even a guy who "worked his way up" might only be a beneficiary of the "promote 'em one level above their competence" school of management.

To paraphrase trial lawyer and analyst Vincent Bugliosi, a rich and famous lawyer might not be rich and famous for his ability to practice law, but for his ability to make friends with rich and famous prospective clientele.

I'm not knocking Ricciardi's ability to run a major league baseball franchise any better than your average fantasy baseball team owner, rather I'm railing against the idea of putting him (and any other GM of questionable ability) on a pedestal by us po' folk just because we haven't yet been given a chance to run a team as he has.

Mike Green - Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 12:06 PM EDT (#185012) #
For what it's worth, my answers to the questions are the ones that I gave at the time. 

If we are talking about going forward, the next GM ought, among other things, to do the following:

1.   integrate sabermetric and scouting perspectives in player personnel decisions,
2.   delegate drafting decisions although there is nothing wrong with a GM offering input and providing policy guidelines (this was something Ash did very well), and
3.   communicate clearly and with as much honesty as is possible under the circumstances.

The #1 pick in 2005 was made personally by Ricciardi, and reflected to a great degree his personal opinion about how close each of the prospects were to the majors, and the organization's positional needs.  There is nothing wrong with the GM setting policy (hopefully  that closeness to the majors, as opposed to likelihood of realizing potential, and the organization's positional needs are a minor factor in a first round pick selection), but making the decision itself is a poor idea because the GM is unable to perform the scouting required on a prolonged basis to override the consensus opinion of staff.

JustinD - Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 09:46 PM EDT (#185030) #

I would have signed Milton Bradley and Fukudome. Pushed hard for the Lincecum-Rios deal, including prospects if I had to.

Priceless.  But why stop there?  I would have traded for Nate McLouth, Ervin Santana and Carlos Quentin - all on the cheap.  


Little late responding to this ayjackson...but what's your deal?  Bradley was pretty much an undesirable. He signed late and for only 5 million. I don't like your tone very much at all. It was a hypothetical question, I said what I would have done. And if you had finished reading my post it said I understand that none of those were very likely to happen but I would have tried for it. Bradley. Said that could have possibly been the only move I made. It would have been pretty easy to get him, I don't think anyone's denying that. Your response was immature and missed the mark totally. McClouth, Santana, and Quentin, no one saw their success  coming. I was in no way implying JP should have had a crystal ball and should have gone for them. All of the other moves were things we were already rumored to be interested in.

So...I don't know what your big deal is or why you think you should come on here and just trash me like that. Very immature.
mathesond - Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 11:18 PM EDT (#185033) #
Right now, I would look hard at trading Halladay. If the team is 2-3 years away, then it's quite probable that Doc won't be as effective as he is now. However, a deal similar to the Haren trade (or Hudson or Mulder, for that matter), could net the young talent that is timed to blossom a couple years down the road. Also, I expect Halladay would bring a lot more in return than Burnett.

/heresy

HollywoodHartman - Monday, May 12 2008 @ 12:12 AM EDT (#185034) #
While that isn't a crazy idea, I think you'd make over half of the Jays fans jump off a cliff, myself included. It may be a relatively smart move, but the idea of seeing Halladay on another team causes me physical pain.
timpinder - Monday, May 12 2008 @ 12:26 AM EDT (#185035) #
I want to see Halladay retire in a Jays uniform.  I love the guy, and he signed below market value to stay in Toronto.  If the Jays traded him there would be one messy pile at the bottom of that cliff, even if the trade favoured the Jays on a talent-for-talent basis.
Magpie - Monday, May 12 2008 @ 02:44 PM EDT (#185068) #
delegate drafting decisions although there is nothing wrong with a GM offering input and providing policy guidelines

Very good point, and for the reasons you gave - but I'll bet its especially hard for a GM who has spent most of his pre-GM career working as a scout, and running a scouting department to put his own judgement aside. Ricciardi's professional background is almost entirely in scouting and player development (and so was Pat Gillick's, whose draft picks were notoriously bad.) Whereas it's the most natural thing in the world for men like Ash (or Sandy Alderson) to delegate the whole process.
Mike Green - Monday, May 12 2008 @ 03:13 PM EDT (#185071) #
True, Magpie.  In fairness to Ricciardi, he apparently did yeoman's work scouting in 2003 which led to the Aaron Hill selection.  It is, I think, well nigh impossible for a GM to maintain that level of intensity because of his other responsibilities.
 
And actually, now that I come to think about it, the process of scouting intensely is probably detrimental to the quite detached attitude that a GM optimally has.

ChicagoJaysFan - Monday, May 12 2008 @ 03:46 PM EDT (#185074) #
And actually, now that I come to think about it, the process of scouting intensely is probably detrimental to the quite detached attitude that a GM optimally has.

I've always personally thought that the scout to GM transition would be one of the harder transitions to make (obviously never having first-hand exposure to the transition makes it difficult to judge).

The problem with being a GM after being a scout is that all of a sudden, especially for the draft, you have to ignore what used to be your greatest strength.  A GM almost always sees the top draft pick or two, but usually only for a brief period of time.  That's not enough to make an evaluation, but the scout in the GM likely think he knows what he's seeing and wants to trust his scouting.  I'd think it'd be very difficult to turn that off.

I would think the transition would be easier to make for people coming up other ways (contracts, finance, player development (if oriented around managing the minors, not a scouting-type role), etc.).  In these roles, the people are usually used to understanding limitations in their available knowledge and not being the expert in the minutiae, which is a lot more similar to the GM role.

I know that a lot of successful GMs have been scouts before, so it's not that it's impossible.  Also, in the long run, maybe understanding scouting is a harder talent to develop than understanding finance / contracts, but I would think it would take a few mistakes for the ex-scout GM to start to realize he's not the expert on any individual player anymore.
Your Move | 53 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.