Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Remember the old, time-honoured tradition of slowly building a team up, from bad to less bad to mediocre to pretty good to great? Remember the Success Cycle, and how every team eventually finds itself on a wheel that spins from good to bad and back (hopefully, anyway) to good again? That tradition might always have been as much myth as reality in the free-agent era. But over the last couple of off-seasons, a few teams have been doing their level best to blow the entire legend to smithereens.

Recall, if you will, the 2003 Detroit Tigers, a team so truly dreadful that they employed the first 20-loss pitcher in 25 years and had to win five of their final six games to avoid tying the 1962 Mets' record of 120 losses. They actually had people feeling sorry for them, such that their final-day win was treated, in quite a pathetic fashion, like a victory for the ages. Not only that, their farm system was as barren as the moon. From all accounts, they would wander in the wilderness up to and including the end of the decade.

Then, after the season ended, the Tigers went to work, sort of. They hit the free-agent market and signed a series of known and uninteresting commodities like Rondell White, Fernando Vina and Jason Johnson. These moves were widely derided as patching the Titanic with band-aids -- except by a few observers who quietly pointed out that even these players, fit only to be backups on contending teams, would constitute marked improvements for this sorry club.

Then, in February 2004, the Tigers signed 2003 World Series MVP Ivan Rodriguez to a gut-wrenching four-year, $40 million contract. The move, to put it mildly, was panned. Rodriguez was widely perceived to have overplayed his hand, failing to get an arbitration offer from the Marlins and settling for a rich contract with a horrible franchise. The Tigers, in turn, were roundly condemned for this irresponsible vanity-plate investment. A foolish player and a foolish team: the perfect match, and a perfect end to an off-season of folly.

Then the Tigers went out and won 72 games. They posted a staggering 29-win improvement over 2003 -- and to put that in perspective, if the 2005 Jays could do that, they'd win 96 games next season. The Tigers started the year by whaling on Cy Young Award winner Roy Halladay and sweeping the Blue Jays on the road. They were even briefly in contention for the AL Central title, leading to previously unfathomable talk that Detroit might actually be acquiring players down the stretch. This off-season, they've been hard at it again, signing former Angels closer Troy Percival to a rich contract and reportedly staying in serious contention for the services of J.D. Drew.

Now, if you don't think the rest of baseball -- in particular, the Arizona Diamondbacks, Seattle Mariners and New York Mets -- is closely watching the Tigers, you don't yet appreciate how the landscape out there has changed. For many teams, a 90-, 100- or even (shockingly, in Arizona) 110-loss season is not cause for despair, or even for a serious re-evaluation of how they're running their business. It's just a blip, a bump on the road, one that a lot of free-agent money can fix.

The Mets went 71-91 last season and finished 25 games out of the division lead. A fundamental problem? Nope, just a blip, one that can be patched up with a little Kris Benson here and a whole lot of Pedro Martinez there -- not to mention, in increasing likelihood, a healthy dollop of Carlos Delgado. The Mets don't have serious leadership problems and a divided front office. They're just a team that's about $100 million and a fresh coat of paint away from contention.

The Mariners went 63-99 last season and finished 29 games out of the division lead. A fundamental problem? Nope, just a blip, one that can be cured with a gold-plated pair of brand-new cornermen, Richie Sexson (coming off an injury-plagued season) and Adrian Beltre (his first good season, in his free-agent year) for about $100 million. This isn't a franchise that finally stopped being able to dodge bullets after losing three potential Hall-of-Famers in three years. This is a team that just needed to reload, with silver bullets.

The Diamondbacks went a mind-blowing 51-111 last season and finished 42 games out of the division lead. Rock bottom for a franchise that won the World Series three years ago by sinking itself neck-deep in debt? Nope, just a blip, one that can be fixed with $250 million worth of "new investors" and rich contracts to B-grade players like Troy Glaus, Russ Ortiz and Royce Clayton -- and maybe even Matt Clement. This franchise isn't actually the poster child for living irresponsibly and on the very edge of ruin. This is a team that says contention is just tens of millions of dollars away. And who's to say they're wrong?

Welcome to the new rebuilding. Last-place finishes (at least, those not caused by losing half your everyday roster to injuries) are no longer cause for a serious re-examination of how your franchise operates and a rededication to building from within. They're simply a slight detour on the way to success. Look at the Tigers, these teams say. They signed one great player and a bunch of supporting players and they roared back to respectability (and never mind that the dead-cat bounce -- or regression to the mean, if you prefer -- would have brought Detroit up to the 60-win neighbourhood anyway). Who needs a farm system? Who needs an organizational philosophy? I got your organizational philosophy right here, thanks -- and it doesn't have a credit limit.

It is still true, of course, that money alone can't buy you a championship -- but it is becoming increasingly clear that money alone can buy you a .500 record, a two-year extension of your GM contract, and a whole lot of favourable publicity in your local press. The Blue Jays aren't planning to contend right now, so it scarcely matters to them what the top teams are doing with their money. But it does matter -- it matters very much -- what the other last-place teams are doing with theirs. And right now, the Jays and these other teams are operating in two entirely different worlds.

The Jays and their owners at Rogers seem to be still committed to the old-fashioned, build-from-within approach to contention. And since that's an admirable, worthwhile and satisfying process, I support them in doing so. But looking around at the game's shattered fiscal landscape, where players can say they're "signing with a contender" that lost almost 100 games, I sometimes wonder if the Jays are playing a different game by themselves, one that the other teams are abandoning altogether to go start their own. If so, then Rogers will have to not only rethink their approach to the Blue Jays' payroll. They'll have to rethink whether they have any interest in playing this game at all.
Respectability -- No Waiting | 18 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Gitz - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 05:43 PM EST (#8639) #
There's a deeper issue at play above and beyond the lunacy that Troy Glaus and Russ Ortiz and Royce Clayton (and, by gosh, just a little better luck!) will improve the D-Backs by 30 games. The D-Backs, and teams like them, may not only be influenced by the likes of the Tigers, but also by the league MLB is so desperate to emulate: the National Football League. Last-to-first is not at all uncommom in the NFL, or at least last-to-eighth-and-final-playoff-spot-but-will-get-beat-in-the-first-round-anyway is not that uncommon. Not only does the MLB want to market as successfully as the NFL, but apparently some of its power-brokers want to import the success model of the Carolina Panthers, who went from nobodies to Super Bowl losers as easily as Barry Bonds turns on a 96-MPH heater. It's not that easy, and the differences between the NFL and MLB Horatio Algers are so obvious that they do not need to be pointed out here, but don't underestimate the influence of the NFL on MLB modalities.
_Jim - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST (#8640) #
Well, what Arizona has done is quite different I think then what Seattle has done. Also, the Mets have one big advantage on both Arizona and Seattle I think. Even with the Hudson move their division is still very winnable, and staying in the wildcard race can be aided with 19 against the Nationals and whatever it is the Marlins seem to be up to.

The Jays aren't alone. Milwaukee seems to be playing a similar style and are at about the same spot on the success curve. The Brew Crew does have the advantage of not having 2 Gorillas in the division though. Cleveland is another team that is building in this style, but again a much easier division in which to compete. Minnesota and Oakland were put together in this fashion, but especially Oakland needs to work on winning now.
_Matthew E - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 06:23 PM EST (#8641) #
I sometimes wonder if the Jays are playing a different game by themselves, one that the other teams are abandoning altogether to go start their own. If so, then Rogers will have to not only rethink their approach to the Blue Jays' payroll. They'll have to rethink whether they have any interest in playing this game at all.

Well, let's see how well the other teams do with this strategy before we start panicking. As far as I'm concerned, if the D-Backs and Mets and Mariners want to spend a bajillion dollars to get back to .500, they can. I'm not convinced you can be actually good for any length of time that way, though.
Mike Green - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 06:35 PM EST (#8642) #
The Tigers' dynamic last year was different from Seattle's and Arizona's this year. The Tigers had a new stadium, a terrible record, and few discernible prospects in the system. Returning to respectability quickly last year had a particular financial value to the Tigers. This really does not apply to Seattle and Arizona this year.

Seattle may genuinely feel that with Beltre and Sexson that they have a chance to compete either next year or the following. And they might be right. It will all depend on the 17 year old arm of Felix Hernandez. I expect that he will make his major league debut in the mid-summer, arm health permitting.

Arizona's actions are plain inexplicable.
Coach - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 07:03 PM EST (#8643) #
They'll have to rethink whether they have any interest in playing this game at all.

We may know their intentions better in 2006 and 2007. If and when the team is positioned to make a playoff run with one or two more pieces, will Rogers ante up in midseason? If they haven't got close by then, the Ricciardi plan will have failed and even the most loyal fans may revolt.

The Jays finally have control over the game day experience. No more blaming the Dome owners for the turf or the hot dogs. Rogers should turn a profit on baseball for the first time since J.P. arrived. If the 2005 attendance goes up and the 2006 payroll doesn't, I'll be outraged.

money alone can buy you a .500 record

A devlopmental machine that keeps turning over talent can keep you far above .500 for a sustained period. It would sure be nice to have a league-average payroll supporting that, especially vs. the Beasts of the East.
robertdudek - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 07:17 PM EST (#8644) #
I understand exactly what Arizona is doing, although I think they haven't made the wisest of free agent choices (apart from Glaus). If they were to average 100 loses over the next three seasons, their attendance would decline despite their shiny new ballpark just as Detroit, Pittsburgh and Colorado's have. That's how many games I would expect them to lose without bringing in a large number of quality players.

Instead, if they can average 80 wins over the next three years, something that is quite feasible with the talent they are bringing in, the difference in attendance is going to add up to a lot of revenue. Probably not enough to cover their free agent signings, but not all that far off.

Their farm system has some interesting players, but nothing much that is ready to contribute apart from a few rookies that showed up in 2004 (Tracy, Gosling, Hairston).

Fast forward three years. Instead of attendance down to 1.5 million after another 100 loss season, they might be coming of an 82-win season with an attendance of 2.5 million. Not only will they be closer to fielding a contender, but they won't have to win back as many fans to push them back up to 3 million territory.

The final point I want to make is that signing free agents isn't as damaging to a team's future as trading your best prospects for veterans in the hopes of competing (like the Mets have traditionally done). The D-backs will still have a great pick in next year's draft and their 2006 draft will be completely unaffected by this year's free agent frenzy.

All the best D-back prospects are still in the system, only now, there are some quality veterans around to bridge the gap to the next contending D-back team.

What they are doing is an extreme version of what I've wanted the Jays to do: raise the budget by 4 or 5 million every year to bring in quality free agents as we move towards contention, rather than wait until we are contenders and then load up on veterans to put us over the top. Why?

For one, bringing in talent without trading prospects can only hasten the day the Jays become serious contenders. Two, there's always the risk that we get stuck on a rebuilding treadmill with fans, players and agents around the league viewing us a perennial also-rans (I would say we are at that point already). Perception counts for a lot. Milwaukee is on that treadmill, so is Pittsburgh. We can't count on catching a genie in a bottle with the farm system like Oakland did. Our farm system is as good as any today, but it's very unlikely it will produce more than a handful of all-stars and that's the optimistic scenario.

With more and more teams pushing payroll to the 70-80 million dollar range, a 53 million dollar payroll looks a lot weaker than it did just a few years ago.
Mike D - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 07:31 PM EST (#8645) #
I agree completely with Robert. If you're not trading outstanding young talent, and you're not blocking majors-ready prospects, there's no downside to a free-agent signing except the dice roll that an early-round draft pick represents.

Unrestricted free agency comes so early in a player's career that five- or ten-year plans come at the risk of impatient, aggressive clubs swooping in and snatching your talent before the plan ripens.

I don't see that there's a clear-cut benefit to being "Young" and "Cheap" (at least for the sake of being Young and Cheap) when a club is "Not Ready To Contend," to the extent that this is even knowable in the wild, woolly world of sports. Admittedly, baseball has such a meaningful sample size of 162 games that a worst-to-first baseball story is less likely than, say, a worst-to-first football story. Hence, the fact there hasn't been a shocking, straight-outta-nowhere championship team since...well, since the Florida Marlins, in the Year of Our Lord two thousand and three.

It bears keeping in mind that there was no way the Jays were contending last year with injuries and uneven play by all of the club's three superstars. And I thought last year's $50M club really could have made noise heading into the season. Nevertheless, I did raise the somewhat controversial idea prior to last year that the final year of the Delgado Era might be the time to load up -- rather than to assume that a retooled post-Delgado club would be the next one with a prayer of contending.
Mike D - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST (#8646) #
Actually, the other downside is, of course, risk that the ownership's bottom line won't reap the benefits of their investment in terms of increased revenue. But as a fan, that registers a perfect 0.0 on my concern-o-meter.
_Matthew E - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST (#8647) #
there was no way the Jays were contending last year with injuries and uneven play by all of the club's three superstars.

...and uneven play by almost everyone else.
Mike Green - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 09:03 PM EST (#8648) #
BOB is six years old. I'm not sure that 80 wins will get you much more in the way of attendance than 70, unless it puts you in contention. I don't think that it will in the NL West.

What I meant about Arizona's actions being inexplicable is the following. They seem to be ridding themselves of (or trying to, in the case of Johnson)high-priced talent for supposed budgetary reasons and then acquiring lesser high-priced talent.

I'd certainly prefer if the home-team's budget was $60 million or more in 2005, but if it's $53 million in 2005 with a non-contending team and $63 million in 2006 with a contending team, I'm fine with that.
_miVulgar - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 10:12 PM EST (#8649) #
It's not that easy, and the differences between the NFL and MLB Horatio Algers are so obvious that they do not need to be pointed out here, but don't underestimate the influence of the NFL on MLB modalities.

I just wish MLB had the intestinal fortitude to do what the NHL is doing.

It needs a good enema.
robertdudek - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 10:17 PM EST (#8650) #
In trying to trade Johnson, they are trying to get something in return before he walks as a free agent. That's exactly what the A's just did with Hudson, and they aren't "rebuilding" either.

Johnson's money can be used to acquire expensive players that will stay beyond 2005, or it can go into the owner's pocket. That particular strategy can be utilized by clubs going the cheap route OR clubs wanting to get better in a hurry.
_R Billie - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 10:34 PM EST (#8651) #
I think there's definately a curve to improving a team. It's easy to add a few high impact pieces through free agency and trade but it's very hard to add many of them in the course of one off-season, or at least enough to take a big losing team to a big winning team.

Now if you have unlimited resources and reasonable luck, you can continue to add high impact pieces every year and eventually sustain some success assuming your minor league system is anything close to competent at producing supporting players. The key to doing this of course is financial flexibility. Some of those big money contracts will inevitably go sour so you can't be tied to everyone for 7 years as the Yankees may be finding out with Giambi.

I like the odds of a team at $50 million going to $100 million over two or three years being successful much more than a team that has to roll over a $100 million budget year and after because it's hard to maintain that flexibility when premiere players usually demand long term deals.
_Matt - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 10:50 PM EST (#8652) #
The Koskie deal seemed pretty darned frugal compared to all the other madness of the week... did it not?

I really liked Gideon's piece though... What's the point of sending out a $53 million team to its doom? The fans very well may revolt... other than my blindly loyal self :)...
_Tyler - Thursday, December 16 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST (#8653) #
We may know their intentions better in 2006 and 2007. If and when the team is positioned to make a playoff run with one or two more pieces, will Rogers ante up in midseason? If they haven't got close by then, the Ricciardi plan will have failed and even the most loyal fans may revolt.

I think it's important to distinguish between the Ricciardi plan, and the Ricciardi actions. The failure of the team to contend in 2006-07, while perhaps indicative that JP's player evaluation and acquisition policy has failed. I don't think it's indicative that the underlying plan isn't sound, regardless of what the local media might think.
Gitz - Friday, December 17 2004 @ 01:31 AM EST (#8654) #
But as a fan, that registers a perfect 0.0 on my concern-o-meter.

What concerns me is that there are concern-o-meter's available and I don't have one!
_Daryn - Friday, December 17 2004 @ 08:33 AM EST (#8655) #
I'm not sure that 80 wins will get you much more in the way of attendance than 70, unless it puts you in contention.

In another thread, we suggested that a win was worth 2% at the gate... it would be interesting to really dig into that stat..

the dead-cat bounce
JORDAN!!!.. what is an image...

of course its only a short term regression towards the mean, the second bounce is much flatter.....
_Rich - Friday, December 17 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST (#8656) #
It sounds much like the Gord Ash Plan to me: let's spend $75 million for a .500 ballclub and bleat on and on about how the team is only 1 or 2 players away from contending without creating any real progress. Sure last year's Tigers were an improvement by any measure, and I could live with a .500 Jays team this year, but that's got to be merely an hopeful stop-gap on the way to real contention. The Ash Jays stayed here for a number of years without progressing and it wears thin on both the owner's wallet as well as the fans.

Until some other mid-market club can match the repeated success of Oakland and Minnesota it's hard to see that the Jays should be taking some other route.
Respectability -- No Waiting | 18 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.