A New Idea for the General Manager's Position
by quincy0191 on Oct 31, 2009 6:31 PM PDT
41 comments
So there’s pretty much a universal feeling of anger and frustration and sadness here regarding Sabean’s retention, mostly deserved. The man did engineer quite a few winning teams and pulled off several good trades, but the former were mostly the result of having one of the game’s all-time best players and the latter were overshadowed by the myriad of awful trades and free agent signings that marred the team and pushed it into several years of suck. Most of the blame for this period falls on Sabean (with a little distributed between various managers and owners), and again, there’s good reason for that: he’s the GM, probably the most powerful voice when it comes to who to sign and who to trade for and who to hold on to. This got me thinking: why are we entrusting this one man with the future of the team?
I’d like to suggest a fairly radical idea: replace the solitary GM with three co-GMs, a triumvirate whose decisions as a body will require the assent of at least two members (it has to be three if not one; two GMs would result in frequent and unproductive dissent). With one general manager, too much of the team’s direction is placed in one man’s hands; sure, he has plenty of scouts, assistants, and the manager giving him advice and altering his direction, as well as an owner who overrules him, but ultimately I feel the single GM has too much control; to say he holds the team’s future in his hands is a pretty accurate assessment. You don’t have to go far to find idiot GMs on failing teams (Dayton Moore, JP Riccardi until a month ago, Walt Jocketty, etc) or great GMs building contenders (Theo Epstein, Andrew Friedman, etc).
So here’s what you do: you replace the GM with the GMs, three equal individuals, each from a different perspective. One sabremetrician, one experienced scout, and one “baseball executive” (I’ll define that more later). This will balance theoretical and experiential knowledge to best judge which players are worth it and which players are not.
The sabremetrician is a pretty obvious role: one guy who knows what all those obscure, yet highly important, stats mean, how to calculate them, and how to apply them. This is the guy that reminds you not to sign Player X despite his coming off a career year, because his HR/FB rate is inflated and his BABIP is 50 points above his career average. It’s the guy that explains Matt Cain was a good pitcher last year, but he wasn’t 2.89 ERA good, he just had a crazy LOB% and generally got lucky. This helps guard against the eyeball signings and using irrelevant stats to evaluate players.
The scout is the guy who spent twenty years in the minor league system and can tell you the entire roster of every affiliate and what flavor ice cream they like most. He can tell you if a guy is going to go the Mark Prior route or the Tim Lincecum route (hopefully). The sabremetrician can tell you that Prospect X looks great because he posted a .250 ISO and a .400 wOBA in college, but the scout can point out that his swing has got holes in it, he can’t hit a curveball (ok, so the sabremetrician could figure that out too) and whether he’s a guy you can fix or a lost cause. This is an important role mostly for the draft and minor league system, but also for knowing which young guys you want and which ones you don’t (for trades/non-tendering), and which guys are ready for the big club and which ones need more seasoning. He’s the guy that will tell you Tim Alderson looked good, but he was generally overvalued and therefore expendable (but he still should’ve fetched more than just Freddy Sanchez).
The “baseball executive” is the negotiator, veteran player expert, and the guy who knows how to work the system. The scout and the sabremetrician aren’t going to be very useful when it comes to determining market value and swapping players; you need a guy who knows a bit about the farm system, and a bit about the stats, and a lot about what makes a player want to come to a certain team. He’s also going to be the authority on free agents, ideally in-between the sabremetrician and the scout. The sabremetrician would say to Lincecum, “We’re prepared to offer you $20 million a year because Fangraphs values your performance at $35 million and your FIP was this and your BB% was this and…”. The scout would say to Lincecum, “We’re going to offer your $2 million because that’s a big raise off you’re $400,000 salary and we’ve got these great prospects coming up and they’re going to be cheap and amazing and you’re replaceable” (Ok, so they wouldn’t be that extreme, but you get the drift; the scout, being focused on the farm system, would undervalue an established major league producer and overvalue the prospects). The “baseball executive” would say to Lincecum, “Look, we know you like San Francisco, and we would love for you to stay here. We also know that you’re really the first guy to put up numbers like this in his first year, but you have to know that we’re weighed down by the Zito and Rowand contracts, and we don’t have that much payroll space. We also have to be careful with pitchers, because they tend to be more unpredictable than other players. But you’re still going to get a great deal, because we realize how special a player you are we’d really like to lock you up long term. We can offer you Contract X based on what Cole Hamels and Zack Greinke got and where we feel we are as a team and where we think we’ll be in a few years.” He’s going to go the middle route between scout and sabremetrician, ideally be a guy who’s worked in baseball operations for a while and knows the business and knows the agents and knows the other executives, like Brian Sabean without the stupid. The “baseball executive” is a bit more difficult to define, but it’s certainly an important role.
I know the scout and the sabremetrician already exist within the system, and I know the “baseball executive” is essentially the current GM (he’s supposed to be), but this would put all three on an equal playing field, and force them to listen to each other and find reasons for their decisions. They’d have to justify themselves not to a possibly ignorant owner, or underlings who can be pushed aside, but to two equals who have the power to overrule them if they’re not providing a good enough argument. Yes, this system could end up being problematic (especially if personal issues arise), but I think it’d be a lot fairer and produce better results than what we’ve got now. The three perspectives need to be equal, because their importance is equal; Sabean’s “baseball executive” doesn’t do any better than Billy Beane’s “sabremetrician” because there is no balance in their roles within the Giants or A’s organizations.
Thoughts?
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
2 recs |
41 comments
Email
Print
Comments
A nice job of thinking outside the box on this one. There’s a lot to like about what you’re describing here, but I don’t know if it would ever happen. Of course, in the current system, a well-run team should already have a similar set-up. Most teams have draft/scouting directors that run the draft with a great deal of autonomy. Tidrow gets a lot of credit around these parts for the recent string of good drafts and Sabean should get some credit for letting Tidrow do what he does. Of course, the Giants also have a sabermetrician on staff, they just don’t listen to him. But most clubs do rely on statistical analysis. That was one of the first things Zduriencik did when he was hired in Seattle: he hired a good stats guy and listened to him. Of course, in both of these cases there is still only a single GM who is smart enough to delegate responsibility.
The main benefit of the current set-up is that it allows one person to really implement his vision. Do you think the A’s would have become as stat-reliant ten years ago if Billy Beane was only one of three GMs? I don’t think so, just because modern statistical analysis was still scoffed at then by many baseball traditionalists. Instead, Billy was given the reins to do what he wanted as long as he stayed under budget. That worked out ok. Really, that kind of autonomy is the biggest advantage of the one-leader concept. With that autonomy, the GM can direct all of his decisions towards fulfilling that vision. A GM with a power pitching fetish (Larry Beinfest?) doesn’t have to worry about satisfying the preferences of colleague who prefers ground-ball pitchers.
I think there are situations where your theory has worked. The first couple years of Theo Epstein’s employment in Boston, Larry Lucchino was essentially the co-GM and provided that insider’s expertise the young Epstein likely needed. Lucchino was the one to close the Schilling deal. I’m sure that Epstein also had a senior scout or two that really helped him with amateur scouting and the like. So, I do think it can work and that it has worked (though not in as official a capacity as you spell out). I also think a good GM would run his plans by an advisor to make sure that he’s not dumb. I just think that in most situations, senior execs will likely become insecure when forced to share power in the manner you suggest and that the one-leader model has some advantages, too.
Joe Martinez: You are cool.
When it's all said and done, America will be remembered for three things: The Bill of Rights, jazz, and baseball.
by cornball on Oct 31, 2009 7:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the Giants also have a sabermetrician on staff, they just don’t listen to him
This right here is what I’m trying to avoid: people who know what they’re talking about, have something important to say, and can’t get any attention. I know that this is already in place in some capacity:
he has plenty of scouts, assistants, and the manager giving him advice and altering his direction, as well as an owner who overrules him
but the current system means that these people can be ignored if they’re not saying something the GM wants to hear, and I’m afraid they are being ignored (see: Giants’ inability to understand that veterans decline). I’m sure Sabean doesn’t ignore the people that scream “STOP SIGNING OLD GUYS WHO HAVEN’T BEEN GOOD IN AWHILE/PLAYERS COMING OFF CAREER YEARS TO LUCRATIVE CONTRACTS”, and I’m sure if I keep saying that eventually I’ll believe it.
by quincy0191 on Nov 1, 2009 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Long paragraphs are long.;
www.leaguelineup.com/lbucks24
by NuschlerFace on Oct 31, 2009 7:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Never work; they'd all three still be human
I got this great idea: we’ll let Mark Antony run the army, and Lepidus will do the back-of-scenes political negotiations with the Senate, and you, Octavian, will handle day to day administration! Ave Roma! (Ave Imperator? No, see, that Emperor stuff died with Julius!)
Super thought: Alex is dead, but we can turn some of his duties over to Seleucus, some to Antipater and some to Lysimichus and Hellenization can proceed apace! Should work great!
Hey Larry Lucchino, why don’t you work with this kid, this Theo Epstein, essentially as co-GM’s. You guys can make that work, can’t you?
Fulfilling your Gus Benusa needs since 2009!
by Giantsfan4life on Oct 31, 2009 8:52 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Nicely said!
No, really, I have updated my blog this year: http://skaldheim.livejournal.com/tag/baseball
by Skaldheim on Oct 31, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had the same thought. Well done.
Schadendodgerfreude 2009! (CHECK)
Schadenyankeefreude 2009! (______)
by WhereThere'sAWillieThere'sAMays on Nov 1, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t say this is a great analogy; I’m not delegating responsibilities here, I’m saying that I want three people with three different perspectives figuring out what to do. It’s more like: let’s put Mark Antony the warrior, Lepidus the politician, and Octavian the administrator together and have them figure out what to do as a group, because Mark Antony alone keeps leading us into costly and unnecessary wars, Lepidus alone keeps endlessly debating without getting anything done, and Octavian alone keeps running things as they are without regard for the internal and external changes of the empire. Alone, each leader has serious flaws, but together, maybe they can counterbalance each other and move in a positive direction.
I get what you’re saying, and obviously there’d be problems, but there seem to be a hell of a lot of problems already. Would it really be that much worse? And can we know without trying?
by quincy0191 on Nov 1, 2009 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I get what you're saying
But Lepidus secretly knows he’d be a better warrior than Antony, and meanwhile Octavian is a cold-blooded opportunist who’s just biding his time. Your idea has merit, except in the real world, you can’t have three bosses. One guy’s gonna emerge as the real guy. In Boston, Epstein does listen to Bill James, but Epstein makes the call.
Fulfilling your Gus Benusa needs since 2009!
by Giantsfan4life on Nov 1, 2009 10:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just split the empire in half
Two capitals: twice the efficiency!
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!
by natteringnabob on Nov 1, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boston is one of the teams that wouldn’t necessarily benefit from this, because they already have a great GM. But one guy will emerge as the “real” guy if and only if he is allowed to. And I think you can have three GMs; I think that at the level of expertise you have to have to be that high up in a baseball organization you have to be a team player. And if you can’t figure out how to work in a group of three people how are you supposed to work in a group of hundreds? Or thousands?
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t like consolidation of power, because then success or failure rides on one (possibly incompetent, unqualified) guy, and there’s considerable evidence to support that idea all around baseball. I’d rather involve as many people as is practical, and I don’t think three is an unreasonable number.
by quincy0191 on Nov 1, 2009 11:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Committees as ultimate authority are doomed to fail.
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below .500
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Lowering the Quality of Internet Discourse Since 1985™
by S.F. Giangst on Oct 31, 2009 9:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
lets prioritize
one really good GM is still the best option, with assistants and a good staff
A really good committee of GM’s is better than a bad GM’s
A bad GM is at least as good as a bad committee of GM’s
etc. etc. etc.
by bradleybear on Oct 31, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The owner is the ultimate authority; a GM committee would be the legislative branch to the owner’s executive branch. We don’t entrust one body to make the laws in this country, and it’s worked out pretty well so far; why not try it in baseball?
by quincy0191 on Nov 1, 2009 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really an apt analogy because the owner doesn’t run a baseball squad, he runs a business that happens to employ a baseball squad. More apt would be comparing your GM committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Guess what, our military is plagued by terrible infighting and a lack of unified direction.
Joe Martinez: You are cool.
When it's all said and done, America will be remembered for three things: The Bill of Rights, jazz, and baseball.
by cornball on Nov 1, 2009 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Flawed Analogy
How would the GM committee impeach the owner?
If you want a better political analogy, look to monarchial systems. The GM role is akin to a viceroy, and historically when that power devolves to a committee chaos will soon ensue.
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below .500
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Lowering the Quality of Internet Discourse Since 1985™
by S.F. Giangst on Nov 2, 2009 6:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
essentially, baseball teams already have this
including the giants. the giants just don’t utilize them properly. nevertheless, a good post
by sfoakbay on Oct 31, 2009 11:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They have something similar (as I said, the GM has a ton of people telling him what to do), but ultimately the GM is the guy that makes the decision (assuming the owner goes along with it). And he often ignores people who later turn out to be right; my system means that he can’t do that, and that GMs who lean in one direction (like Sabean toward veterans or Beane toward prospects) would be balanced. Of course, that’s an ideal situation; it could just devolve into endless bickering about what to do (but with three GMs, the “do we or don’t we” has to go one way or another; that’s why I skipped two and went to three).
by quincy0191 on Nov 1, 2009 1:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did Sabean really "pull off several good trades?"
Besides Williams for Kent, and Rios for Schmidt, I can’t think of any other good trades he made. I’m not doubting that he did, but no other trades come to my mind
It’s funny, his reputation as a great GM form 97-03 was almost purely based off the Kent-Williams trade
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son
by lincecuminyourface on Nov 1, 2009 9:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
As we all know, Kent wasn’t even the centerpiece of that trade – Julian Tavarez was. So Sabes dealt for relief pitching and got 6 seasons from a HOF 2B almost by accident.
His other standout deals, including trade deadline “rentals”:
- Watson and Macey for JT Snow
- Foulke, Caruso and Barcelo for Wilson Alvarez, Danny Darwin and Roberto Hernandez
- Fontenot, Pageler and Villano for Robb Nen
- Hamilton for Ellis Burks
- Grilli and Bump for Livan (I was never a big fan of Livo but I guess he was better than the two guys he was traded for)
- Relaford for David Bell
- Diaz and Meaux for Kenny Lofton
- Torrealba and Foppert for Randy Winn
From what I’ve read, he was also influential in the trade that sent Rueter to the Giants, even if he wasn’t the GM at the time.
So yeah, Sabes has made some good trades but most of them were from 1997-2002 and the last one was in July of 2005. It’s been downhill since.
If you can get 3:2 on a headline of "Giants Pitcher Assaults General Manager" at some point this year, take it.
by esseffgeez on Nov 1, 2009 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One more…I forgot who we traded to get Andres Galarraga but that deal in 2001 wasn’t bad, either.
If you can get 3:2 on a headline of "Giants Pitcher Assaults General Manager" at some point this year, take it.
by esseffgeez on Nov 1, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Morris for Rajai Davis
We're all basically Pedro Feliz.
by SF Pete on Nov 1, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
... and then we released him after giving him 18 at-bats in 08
Of course he proceeded to tear it up with the A’s
On the list of recent crappy moves by the Giants, letting Rajai go has been overlooked
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son
by lincecuminyourface on Nov 1, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He only tore it up with the A’s this year.
I know you nerds know NOTHING about the real game of baseball, or any other athletic endeavor requiring teamwork under physical stress.
Mr. F! | comics | art | New Nattowear | Unofficial McImage Directory
by Natto on Nov 1, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the list
I wasn’t even aware of a lot of these because I was pretty young when most of them happened. I think it’s interesting that almost all of them happened prior to 02. It seems that since then other GM’s have adopted modern ways of thinking about baseball while Sabean has stuck to his outdated, ineffective strategies
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son
by lincecuminyourface on Nov 1, 2009 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why stop at three, why not make it 42,000?
Brian Sabean strongly encourages you to disregard the drudgery of your employment responsibilities and join him in the consumption of spirituous libations.
by satyricrash on Nov 1, 2009 11:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like Lansford's departure speech
• Class AAA hitting coach Hensley Meulens is a candidate to replace Carney Lansford as the Giants’ hitting coach. Lansford was the only coach fired after the season. Meulens is credited with helping 2B/OF Eugenio Velez(notes) turn around his season during Velez’s midseason stint in Fresno. Regarding his successor, Lansford said, "I wish whoever it is the best. I hope they get some players for him."
Isnt that like saying the entire team sucked?
Please refer to username
by SabeanPlusBochyEqualsEpicFailure on Nov 1, 2009 11:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Technically don’t the Giants already employ this approach? We already know Sabean likes to get a group consensus before making decisions. It’s not like he’s an autocrat. Sabean is the baseball executive, Tidrow is the scout, and Bobby Evans is the sabermetrically inclined guy no?
by Hobbes2d on Nov 1, 2009 9:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think it's called
groupthink. No, it’s not the same as grougthink. Or groudthink or grogthink.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!
by natteringnabob on Nov 1, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
Some of the Giants’ decisions have the distinct feel of grogthink.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
by groug on Nov 1, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
grapethink
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Nobody puts Bengie in a corner!
by natteringnabob on Nov 2, 2009 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To some extent every team employs this strategy. I don’t think there’s a single team out there anymore who doesn’t have a stats department, let alone a stats guy. Scouting we know is well established. But I get the feeling that Sabean doesn’t put much stock in sabremetrics; why the hell would he trade for Freddy Sanchez and his career .334 OBP and .118 ISO for a team with OBP and power problems if he employed competent sabremetricians and listened to them? Nick Johnson and his career .402 OBP and .174 ISO were clearly available; the Marlins got him, and the Nats would be tripping all over themselves to get pitching, considering the got a far worse prospect in Ryan Tucker and had to pay part of Johnson’s salary.
Maybe I’m way off base here, but that doesn’t seem like the only time Sabean has signed a player who had a good year he can’t repeat to a contract based on that year (Rowand), or a player who is clearly declining and hasn’t been good for a couple years to a contract far better than he deserves (Renteria, Zito). I have a hard time believing he puts much value in stats considering some of the FA signings he’s made. And I can’t believe he knows what the hell is going on with the young guys when he thinks Emmanuel Burriss or Brian Bocock are good additions to a major league team after their whole year in A-ball, or that Eugenio Velez is worthwhile, or that Bowker deserves to spend most of the year rotting in AAA when he’s posting crazy numbers, or that Frandsen is a crappy player because he is, or…you get my drift.
So maybe the Giants employ this approach, and the entire front office is full of idiots. Except Tidrow’s probably a genius considering he can actually draft pitching. Given how terribly they’re mismanaged, either the front office is full of idiots or they’re not vocal enough in their opposition of Sabean’s moves. I’m trying to fix the second possibility.
by quincy0191 on Nov 1, 2009 11:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we should employ the Horton Hears A Who strategy and stand outside the BRASZ offices shouting “We are here, we are here, we are HEEERE!”.
"I don’t know why people feel the need to come up with reasons 'why' for everything..." - Missing Barry
by victor frankenstein on Nov 2, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like where you're coming from with this...
however I feel the problem can be solved with better GM hiring. Of course it’s not possible to know exactly what a GM’s going to do once he’s on the job, but a good GM should be able to take into account the many facets of the game and to “know what he doesn’t know,” that is, to delegate responsibility when he knows another person or group of people in the system could assess a situation more effectively. But yes, in terms of our current situation, it would be nice to have some checks and balances so not every decision is made based on a combination of “the kid can hit a fastball a mile” and “VVVVVVRRRRRRROOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
"Snow woulda had it!!!"
Has decided to put all his "In this thing" energy to being in the Shark Tank and the Big House.
by beat_la_25 on Nov 2, 2009 7:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It seems to me that a situation like this is too easy to tie up decision-making in a committee. So while one team is able to quickly strike on trading for a player, or determining who to promote from the minors, too many GMs will inhibit progress.
Ultimately, Neukom should have been able to figure out that Sabean’s ignoring a good bit of the tools available that can help in properly building a team, let him go, and gone through an interview process where he can determine two things in particular with any given candidate:
1. How do you feel about “eyeballing” a player to determine how good/bad he is?
2. How do you feel about statistical analysis?
Any GM that passes round one of the interview proces should say he prefers a combination of the two. You ultimately need a GM who’s most likely to create a structure that uses various methods of analysis.
Sabean never should have been retained.
I'm thinking but nothing's happening.
by JRPhillips on Nov 2, 2009 10:09 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
What would you do if your boss was like “I know you are a valuable Engineer for our company but we decided to pay the maid $20M a year and we also paid $14 Mil for those nogahyde couches in the lobby, so we can only give you a raise from minimum wage to $10 an hour.”
but you have to know that we’re weighed down by the Zito and Rowand contracts, and we don’t have that much payroll space
by ssbase21 on Nov 2, 2009 4:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, if he followed it up with
But you’re still going to get a great deal, because we realize how special a player you are we’d really like to lock you up long term.
and then gave me a great deal I’d be pretty okay with it. Lincecum is going to get paid. If there was any justice in this world he’d be making at least $20M on a long-term contract, but he won’t, partly because the Giants don’t have that kind of money. They’ll be able to retain him through his arbitration years and probably beyond, but I’m pretty afraid of what’s going to happen in 2012 when Zito, Rowand, Lincecum, Sandoval, and Posey are going to be making a combined $70M.
by quincy0191 on Nov 2, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How much money does Sabean make?
Because I doubt you’re going to find an owner who wants to triple his GM payroll by doing this. Or, are you going to split the GM salary in thirds?
Having three GMs just costs the owners more money. While it may make some sense from a competitive baseball standpoint, I don’t see it being a very sound business move from a revenue standpoint. Maybe if the difference between one GM and three GMs became the difference between missing and making the playoffs each year, you could argue that it was financially viable, but without knowing the outcome, I don’t see how any business-savvy owners would sign on for that.
by The Double Deuce on Nov 3, 2009 12:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sabean doesn’t make more than a couple million dollars. For a team with a $90M payroll, adding a few million more is likely unimportant if it helps the team enough. And you would probably be able to eliminate a few positions to compensate (don’t need a director of player development if you have a GM of player development).
And yeah, we don’t know what would happen. Of course, history is filled with examples of people who tried new business tactics and either dominated the industry or went bankrupt. Trying new ideas is essential to doing business; if you don’t, someone else will, and being first is everything.
by quincy0191 on Nov 3, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on McCovey Chronicles
Related FanShots on McCovey Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
