Sabean vs. the Groupthink
by quincy0191 on Dec 13, 2009 7:10 PM PST
Email
PrintI think Brian Sabean is a bad GM. Let’s get that out of the way right there. I’m not going to bother proving it, because you probably don’t have five years to read the endless list of idiotic moves, occasionally punctuated by a favorable outcome as a result of pure dumb luck.
But I want to know: at what point does the groupthink prove itself to be more competent than Sabean? I’m sure many, if not most, of you think that you’d do better than Sabean as GM (I know I do), and some of you are probably right, even if most of you are wrong (I probably am). Sabean’s the longest-tenured GM in baseball; that has to mean something. There must be something he’s doing that makes him good at what he does, doesn’t there? Or is it possible that the ownership knows nothing about what makes a good GM, and simply continue to employ Sabean because he’s been doing this awhile, and not on the strength of his individual accomplishments? Part of me thinks that anyone with the money to buy a baseball team is probably pretty good with business and personnel decisions; you don’t get a few billion dollars by being an idiot, and so there must be something that we’re not seeing which makes Sabean a good GM. The other part of me thinks that Neukom has no idea what’s going on, and he retained Sabean because he didn’t know who else to hire, and more importantly, didn’t know how to go about finding someone else to hire.
I digress. The point here is that as a community, most of us are fairly good at evaluating players with statistics (the inability to see a player in person does somewhat mitigate our collective opinion, but then statistics are good predictors of future performance when analyzed correctly), and most of us generally agree on which players should be retained, which players should be cut, which players should be pursued, and which players aren’t worth major league minimum. Nick Johnson is the most prominent example right now; he’s oft-injured, but his high OBP and position for a team with OBP problems and an open first base make him a good match. In fact, the injuries drive down his price, and we may not have much money after Lincecum goes through arbitration, so that may work out in our favor. And most people here think Nick Johnson would be a good acquisition (so would Dan Uggla, depending on the prospect cost, and some prefer Uggla over Johnson, but I believe few here think Johnson is a bad acquisition for us).
Brian Sabean is pursuing Johnson and Uggla. He is also pursuing Adam LaRoche, who would cost quite a bit more than Ryan Garko for the same production. Given he recently non-tendered Garko, his motivation in pursuing the same player for more money is mysterious. Mark DeRosa, a 35 year old infielder, admittedly with considerable position versatility, is also on the radar. DeRosa had a career year with the bat in 2008, but hasn’t been particularly impressive offensively excepting that year, and has declining defense, likely related to his age (his best defensive year was in 2006, primarily as an outfielder and a third baseman, two positions we have pretty well filled). I question why LaRoche, a player who is typically no better than one Sabean just non-tendered, and DeRosa, an older player with declining skills who would devalue our best offensive player by pushing him to first base, are considered valuable acquisitions, especially when they are seeking multiyear deals at anywhere between $7M and $10M per year (maybe he likes players with two capital letters in their last names?). I think most people here share my concerns, and likely for the same or similar reasons.
Mike Cameron is the other position player I like, for his strong centerfield defense and consistent hitting, despite his age. Anything longer than a two year deal is unwise for him, but a one-year pact at a reasonable rate makes him a good target. Again, this is a feeling shared by many here. Sabean has responded by showing interest in Scott Podsednik, who had a career year in 2009 thanks to an inflated BABIP of .342 (career .321) which pushed his average and OBP to .304 and .353 respectively. Given that Sabean hasn’t had a lot of luck signing players coming off career years to expensive contracts (see: Aaron Rowand), one would think Podsednik’s numbers, inconsistent with his career performance (he had his best year since 2003, and his first in positive WAR territory since 2005), would serve as a warning sign, as would his typically bad defense. Many people here already know this, have pointed it out, and have rightly concluded that Podsednik is a bad acquisition, especially when a player like Cameron, who has produced consistently, is on the market.
In the case of Sabean vs. the Groupthink, it seems far too easy to go with the groupthink, whose positions are clear and based on statistical evidence, when Sabean seems to have little reasoning other than "AH LIKEZ DIS GUY HE GUD!" Reasoning like that results in the signing of an interesting guy you met at the bar to be the starting left fielder. Is it possible that Sabean is truly stupid enough to think that Podsednik, DeRosa, and LaRoche are good acquisitions? Or is Sabean’s interest not genuine, intended to drive the price up and draw attention away from his real targets: Johnson/Uggla and Cameron? The fact that he’s got offers on the table to three different infielders (Johnson, DeRosa, and LaRoche are three different infielders…) would seem to point to the former. Yet it still remains difficult to believe that Neukom and the rest of the managing partners are dumb enough to stick by Sabean while he butchers the team, especially when they are obviously generally successful and intelligent people.
I’d seriously like to know what you think: is Sabean just as stupid as he seems to be, and the collective opinion of some of the more hardcore fans, substituted for Sabean’s, would result in a better team, or are there unknown factors that we, not being major league general managers, and having no real experience building major league baseball teams, which create the illusion of idiocy without the actual content? Is it possible that Neukom & Co. are incompetent when it comes to finding and acquiring talented management, or do they merely combine inexperience with exposure to information we are not privy to?
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.
186 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I dont think id be a better GM
I just think Sabean is bad comparatively to other GMs around the league.
#1 threat to America: Pandas
Also, Tim Lincecum
Adopted Father: Tyler Graham
Official McPokeMaster
Registered Velezbian and supporter of Fredemption
by GrahamCrakalaka on Dec 13, 2009 7:13 PM PST reply actions
I don’t think I’d be a better GM, but this Groupthink character sounds like he might be pretty good.
I’m holding out hope that Sabean made lowball-ish offers to DeRosa and LaRoche so they can say they “have offers on the table to multiple free agents” in an effort to gain a little bit of leverage with Johnson. Judging by past performance thats probably giving Sabean a little too much credit, but I’m willing to wait and see who actually ends up here and at what price before really putting Sabean on blast for expressing interest in guys like DeRosa.
Lastly, I think the LaRoche vs. Johnson is a great example for comparing Sabean with groupthink (especially if we sign LaRoche for more or as much as Johnson gets) and I agree with the basic premise of this post but I just think the Podsednik vs. Cameron comparison is a bit unfair. Adding Podsednik at any price is a horrible move but it is at least worth point out that he could very well sign for less than 1/8 the annual amount that Cameron signs for. Its kinda like saying groupthink says Holliday is better than Gomes but Sabean doesn’t get it. I assume even Sabean would recognize that Cameron is better than Podsednik. I expect and hope the full wrath of the McCoven will rain down upon Sabean if Podsednik is signed as one of the main pieces to upgrade the offense, but I think you kind of implied that Sabean thinks Pods>Cameron.
Thing A
lookout
groug is gonna get you
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
"I sometimes still can get insider info and I am not a dumb or average fan.
Molina is needed."
by natteringnabob on Dec 14, 2009 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t think you have to compare Pods to Cameron to make the idea that we have an offer out to Pods a breathtakingly stupid concept. Compare him to Andres Torres — at Torres salary — and I still don’t see where we’re getting any value add from it.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
we can evaluate talent as well if not better than him
when it comes to looking at major league players. We are probably also better and deciding which player would be helpful to the team and which would not. But where Sabean has us is when it comes to the negotiation. Most of us would have no clue what the best route to take is when you want to sign someone, how to talk to the agents, how to deal with your owner and setting a payroll, how to negotiate contracts, all that kind of stuff… also, things like how to put multiple offers out knowing that some of the players would be mutually exclusive to your club. He also might have a better idea about how to scout amateur talent. But yes, I think we could do better when it comes to roster construction if all it took were:
a. deciding which players are best for the team
b. deciding about how much to pay each one depending on a set payroll
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
But where Sabean has us is when it comes to the negotiation
Can’t say I agree. Sabean is terrible at this aspect. Coletti did all the negotiating when he was around, so Sabean really might not even have as big a role in this as you might think (though conversely, I don’t know that he doesn’t have as big a role)….
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions
Coletti's contracts were/are just as awful.
I think it’s less a matter of negotiations than a matter of buying high, selling low, and generally dealing from a position of weakness.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Seeing things like the Zito contract, where the next rumored offers were in the ballpark of 5 years/$90M or so, though, makes me think they really are terrible at negotiations. And Coletti, as Sabean’s protege, is a pretty god awful GM himself….
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 8:42 PM PST up reply actions
yes
I didn’t mean that he’s GOOD at those things, I just mean that with all the experience he has, he probably has a better idea of how to go about doing it than most of us do.
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Yeah, I mean, I’ve never been involved in the process so of course everything would be new to me if I tried, but I legitimately believe I would be a better negotiator than Sabean, if for no other reason than I have better information at my disposal (since I have no doubt I have a better understanding of statistics than Sabean), and I’m willing to walk away when Scott Boras starts talking to me about how much money Zito is worth….
(I also think my negotiation skills in general are decent) :)
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 9:12 PM PST up reply actions
When it comes to the groupthink entity, we can always specialize and allocate particular jobs to people. Looks like you may be set to have a major role in the negotiation department.
It would need a head though. A dynamic leader is necessary in multiple-entity arrangements to preclude stasis.
Lethargy
It has me
experience he has, he probably has a better idea of how to go about doing it than most of us do.
VETERAN GRIT!
In all honesty, experience=/= knowledge.
say hey nation is the Ralph Nader of McC.-Xanthan
by say hey nation on Dec 14, 2009 6:33 AM PST up reply actions
It's not what you know, it's who you know
Ring true in all of the academic/professional world.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Dec 14, 2009 7:40 AM PST up reply actions
I think it’s less a matter of negotiations than a matter of buying high, selling low, and generally dealing from a position of weakness.
Are those not the trade mark signs of a bad negotiator?
say hey nation is the Ralph Nader of McC.-Xanthan
by say hey nation on Dec 14, 2009 6:31 AM PST up reply actions
Yes and no.
I mean he’s a bad negotiator because he’s a bad evaluator, so he’s more than willing to spend too much for certain players.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
This sounds about right to me. I just don’t believe that sabean understands what hitting skills lead to scoring runs, and he makes plenty of decisions that frustrate and/or baffle me. However, he’s still been in the business a long time and must have some ability and experience (And yes, I realize this sounds like their “experienced players are awesome” philosophy). So I don’t think I’d be better completely replacing him, but I like to think just by being more open and rational I’d be able to make some more sensible decisions.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Dec 13, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions
Of course, the hitting skills that lead to scoring runs are the hitting numbers that reflect runs scored. Doesn’t that make perfect sense?
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 8:16 AM PST up reply actions
I think the people at NinersNation have some pretty good ideas about how to negotiate. Just go back in time to before Crabtree signed and ask them what they would have done then.
Actually, forget where I said the part about “good ideas.” Just go back in time and ask them because it’s funny. Man, some people said some stupid things.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions
yes, yes they did
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Care to elaborate for those of us who don’t go to NinersNation?
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 9:12 AM PST up reply actions
My favorites were the suggestions that the Niners tell Crabtree that he’s getting X-million dollars, and that every day he held out that number would go down by Y-million dollars. (Presumably, this would continue until that number finally hit zero, which would FINALLY convince Crabtree to sign.)
That one was fairly popular.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
It’s getting better. Fooch and Co. really work hard to keep advanced analysis as close to the forefront as possible, and there is now actually a small group of knowledgeable regulars who do tell all the idiots when they’re being idiots.
Still rough going sometimes, though.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
listen, don't call me an idiot
me and “KORY SHEETS WAS OUR FUTURE” work really hard to keep it real over there. Nate Davis is the greatest QB to never play a snap. Shaun Hill would have this team at least 3 more wins. You can take your fancy stats and shove em
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
You forgot about Allen Rossum.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
actually
I do think it was pretty dumb to cut allen rossum
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
I don’t think it was dumb to cut him per sé. I do think it was quite dumb that Brandon Jones and Arnaz Battle were pretty much the extent of our plan B.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Excuse me for a minute. I just have to call a fair catch on the two-yard line.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Oh hell, I probably shouldn’t have fumbled that.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions
this is going so well
we should probably call a trick play on the next one
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Well, we did practice it all week.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
I haven’t really watched them that much, but is there another Dexter Carter on the team.
Giant Dirtbags: John Bowker, Steve Hammond. MIA List: Todd Jennings, Brian Anderson
Jeremy Affeldt induces DP's
by Giant among Angels on Dec 14, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions
right
but that’s why it was dumb to cut him – because there was no plan B. It was like when they fired Mariucci – and then were like “oh yeah we need to hire a replacement don’t we? ok well, Dennis Erickson!”
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Yeah, I agree. I just think the really dumb part happened before Rossum was released (not ensuring a plan B), and that releasing Rossum was just the dumb thing that proved how completely dumb the first thing was.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, now that I think more about it, neither move is completely dumb without the other. It’s like some Amazing Law of Moronic Circularity. A Mobius Strip of Stupid, if you will.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
A Mobius Strip of Stupid
Your post-Steve Young SF 49ers
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
By the way, what’s the alt-code for the o with the Umlaut on it?
Actually, I’ll just Google this.
Cool. Möbuis Strip.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
I REALLY hate to be the Sabean defender but...
Let me first state that I think Sabean is a mediocre GM. Not the best, not the worst.
Anyway, there are some things you said that I disagree with.
He is also pursuing Adam LaRoche, who would cost quite a bit more than Ryan Garko for the same production.
This isn’t true. LaRoche has a career OPS 42 points higher than Garko. That’s the difference, for instance, between Ichiro and Felipe Lopez last year. Also, LaRoche plays better defense than Garko. Now, you can make the case that based on what they will be making next year that Garko is the better bargain, but they are not the same player.
The other issue I have is the fact that there is a rumor that Posednik interests Sabean and it is taken as fact. You do mention that it’s possible that it’s a strategy but quickly dismiss it. Maybe there is interest, and if there is, then yes, that would be stupid. But who the hell really knows. To use the existence of the rumor to prove that Sabean is an idiot is unfair.
Like I said, I think Sabean is mediocre. He’s been on the job for a very long time and I think he’s established a track record that has quite a bit good and bad. However, I do like the things I have been hearing from him this offseason, such has looking at short contracts and the players that have been linked to the Giants the most (Johnson and Uggla). But until the offseason if over, I’m withholding judgement. Lets see how it plays out and then decide if we feel he is an idiot or not.
Not sure what to do about my screen name at this point...
by AngelWillSaveUs on Dec 13, 2009 8:12 PM PST reply actions
That’s the difference, for instance, between Ichiro and Felipe Lopez last year.
But Felipe Lopez had a really good year last year…
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"AT LAST I AM A PARENTS." - Buster
True, probably not the best example. Just tried to find 2 with the same difference quickly.
Not sure what to do about my screen name at this point...
by AngelWillSaveUs on Dec 13, 2009 8:40 PM PST up reply actions
The difference in their OPS+ is 7 (109 Garko, 116 LaRoche), but Garko actually has a higher OBP than LaRoche (just lower SLG), suggesting that overstates the difference some.
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions
Is he? Tango’s Fans Scouting Report certainly thinks so by a fairly wide margin, but UZR has them as basically exactly the same. It is worth something, for sure, the better question is just how big of a difference is there between them?
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 8:41 PM PST up reply actions
They are close only because of LaRoche’s 2005 UZR/150 rating. He comes in at -18.3 that year, which is WAY out of line with the rest of his career. Not sure what that means, but I’d tend to heavily discount that since it is so far out of line with the rest of his performance.
Not sure what to do about my screen name at this point...
by AngelWillSaveUs on Dec 13, 2009 8:46 PM PST up reply actions
Nah, stats don’t work like that. If you wanted to weight more recent performances more heavily because more recent = more informative (in general), that’s one thing, but you can’t just toss out outliers like that. It’s data that suggests all his other years probably overstate his defense. Outliers are still data points that have to be accounted for, even if they’re unlikely to be repeated. They do tell us something.
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
But this is UZR, which – correct me if I’m wrong – I believe is known to vary greatly between years, and really needs a huge sample size. If this one last year was far out of line with his past few, I’d say it’s more likely this was the aberration and not the rest of his career.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Dec 13, 2009 10:44 PM PST up reply actions
By the same token, if you’re looking at UZR, and a season sample size is very small, I’d say it would be more appropriate to include every scrap of data you have on a guy rather than taking some parts and deciding that they are more representative of the player than the other parts.
Lethargy
It has me
basically
laroche is slightly better than garko, but the difference isn’t great enough to cut one who could be had at 3-4 million than one of could be had at 6-7 million (is that what laroche is going get?)
He’s merely interpreting data which isn’t the same issue as how that data is gathered or measured. Not as hard and fast. Also, he is discounting what he interprets as aberrational information, not tossing it out altogether. Seems reasonable to me, it would at least prompt further analysis (injury etc). I don’t believe that cold lifeless numbers and statistics come with instructions for how they should be interpreted. Therein lies the human element and the source for such wide disagreement between people armed with the same data.
Yeah but there are still appropriate and inappropriate ways for going about dealing with data, even if there are grey areas. With UZR specifically, in small sample sizes it’s subject to wild fluctuations (including large measurement and sample error). The whole point is once you get an adequate sample size the average of these fluctuations should be a good approximation of reality – so once you start arbitrarily deciding which fluctuations you want to keep and which to not put much emphasis on based on whether or not it “looks right” or fits your initial thoughts will lead to bad results. I think the best way for using the data is to use it all and look at the full set of data for his true performance level. Again, I noted that the Fans Scouting Report does disagree with UZR, so it may be that it’s undervaluing his defense.
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 8:02 AM PST up reply actions
I understand how stats work. That’s why I said I’d “heavily discount” the outlier, not throw it out. I also know that UZR is far from perfect and has wild fluctuations from year to year. Also, UZR is an evolving stat and has been improving steadily. The year in question is 2005, when it was still fairly new and I would say safe to assume not as accurate as UZR has become, which still isn’t extremely accurate. Add to the fact that this one was so far out of the normal range, I think it’s easily justifiable to discount it significantly based on all those factors.
Not sure what to do about my screen name at this point...
by AngelWillSaveUs on Dec 14, 2009 8:00 AM PST up reply actions
Hmmm….if there’s evidence UZR has changed/improved since 2005, that would be a reasonable argument. Throwing out data that’s out of the normal range just based on it being out of the expected range isn’t a good thing, though. If there’s evidence some factor like an injury was at play, I’d be more inclined to buy it, but assuming there was no external factor at work that would no longer be present (such as an injury), and assuming his talent level hasn’t changed in any significant way over time, you have to take the data into account with the same weight you give the rest of the data…
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 8:06 AM PST up reply actions
True, my comment about UZR improving was an assumption I made, but I think it’s fairly safe one to make. If I’m not mistaken, UZR is based on play-by-play data, which has improved since 2005 (Pitch F/X, more detailed/accurate MLB Gameday, etc.) If the inputs are improving, the final product will improve as well. Again, my hypothesis, but a fairly safe one to make IMO.
Again, not throwing the data out, but just heavily discounting. And I don’t agree that you have to take the data into account with the same weight as the rest. If a college football player is at a work out and runs 40s at 4.2, 4.3 and 5.4, are you going to say he runs a 4.6 or a 4.3? I think most people would say that he’s has 4.3 speed (so he’ll be drafted by the Raiders even though he’s never played football before) and that the 5.4 time isn’t a true representation of his ability. The reason he ran a 5.4 doesn’t need to be known for us to discount the data.
Not sure what to do about my screen name at this point...
by AngelWillSaveUs on Dec 14, 2009 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t think the inputs are really improving – they’ve had people classifying the play-by-play pitches for a while now, I don’t know the system is still the same but it’s been going on for a lot longer than just the last few years, so I’m pretty sure that has remained largely unchanged (one of my buddies did play-by-play data inputting for Dewan’s +/- numbers).
Using your comparison, if we’re talking about 40 times, it would kind of be like using those times to try to predict his future 40 times. Sure, that 5.4 is weird and not in line with what he’s obviously capable of, but it did happen, and if we don’t know anything specific about it we have to take that probability into account. It’s a data point just like the other two times. There is some room to adjust when you’re looking at a sample like that where a single data point (or a few data points if the sample is bigger) is skewing the mean and the median is way different – but again, we’re not actually looking at one or a couple data points here. This is from play-by-play data from over 1000 innings. That’s close to a full season, and we know confidence intervals for that kind of sample is around +/- 5 runs or so, so he likely was a pretty bad fielder for that time.
I still do not think it’s appropriate, with no other information, to discount the data at all…
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 9:25 AM PST up reply actions
The biggest problem with LaRoche
Is that he and Garko add up to a great platoon. Individually, they’re only half of a great player.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
actually
isn’t the biggest problem the outrageous salary he will command?
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
"I sometimes still can get insider info and I am not a dumb or average fan.
Molina is needed."
by natteringnabob on Dec 13, 2009 10:59 PM PST up reply actions
Ryan Garko career wOBA: .347. Adam LaRoche career wOBA: .353. That’s six points of difference. And wOBA is a better metric than OPS, though OPS is good. Garko is the worse defender (although it should be pointed out that he’s improved every year, and was in positive territory in ‘09), but he’s also considerably cheaper; his total production relative to his cost is far better than LaRoche’s.
The Podsednik rumor comes from Baggarly, who’s a pretty reliable source, and he said that the Giants had an offer on the table for Podsednik (though he couldn’t confirm it), which means that they would have signed him if he accepted. It’s a rumor, yes, but a fairly reliable one.
As for Sabean’s tenure, like I said, I feel it’s a series of idiotic moves punctuated by good (lucky) acquisitions. Barry Bonds fell into his lap, Kent came out of nowhere to be a great offensive 2B, and all he had to do was re-sign them. But he’s made a lot of stupid moves, from signing big, awful contracts that he knew were big and awful, to punting draft picks, to trading great pieces for little to nothing (again, I cite the Garko trade: Barnes for 127 PAs of Garko), to not pulling the trigger on players who could actually help and are good. Do we really need to wait another offseason? We’ve got 13 years of offseasons to look at, and they point toward failure and incompetence.
My initial reaction to the statement to the favorable comparison between Garko and LaRoche was disagreement, but it doesn’t look too bad after reexamining the data. I agree here.
Also, there is a new (to me, at least; it may not be so novel in fact but the article explaining it went up today) hitting stat on fangraphs, wRC+, which equilibrates to the park and the league on the OPS+ 100=average scale. I figured I’d rustle up those to see if the ballpark-adjusted stats further support the argument.
Garko career: 113
LaRoche career: 118
Right in line with what you’ve been saying. Cool beans.
Lethargy
It has me
I do think that LaRoche better than Garko, he’s been worth around a win better (per 600 PA) over the last 3 seasons. It depends what contract he’d get, it he gets a 3/30 contract you’d be better off going with Garko, if he gets a 2/14 contract then that’s more reasonable.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
This didn't have to be an either-or proposition
LaRoche hits lefties terribly. Garko doesn’t. Would it be worth an extra $2 mil to get good production against left-handed pitchers? Yes sir, if you ask me.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Sabean doesn't like platoons.
I mean he really, really doesn’t like them. You can’t even put it on Bochy’s head, he managed a number of successful platoons with the Padres.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
It might be because good platoon players want non-platoon money.
Bruce Bochy would like you to look at the career numbers and stop complaining.
Bob Howry's #1 (and only) fan!!!
The Merkin Valdez of McCovey Chronicles!!!!!!
But they’ll still be making non-platoon money. Sabean probably doesn’t want to spend two player’s salaries for one position.
Bruce Bochy would like you to look at the career numbers and stop complaining.
Bob Howry's #1 (and only) fan!!!
The Merkin Valdez of McCovey Chronicles!!!!!!
Define "starter money"
Garko, for instance, was in line for about 3M, which is substantially less than what I consider to be “starter money”. If you think a decent starter is roughly a 2 WAR player, and each WAR is worth about $4M, then “starter money” is around $8M
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I agree with a lot of this
One of the things that frustrates me with the “I’d be a better GM than Sabean” sentiment is how people think they know everything going on behind the scenes.
I think the following:
- There is much more smoke screens and diversions that we give him credit for, especially when you think about his history of trades and FA signings coming out of nowhere.
- Rumors are just that. We go all batty over rumors, but how many of them are actually true? We really don’t know “the market” like we think we do. Case in point: Alderson. If “the word” on Alderson that he really wasn’t that good made it to BruteSentiment, surely the rest of baseball knew it, yet people crap all over Sabean for not getting more than Sanchez.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
Really, the only thing that bothers me about the "I’d be a better GM than Sabean" is the fact that the things we judge Sabean on are only part of his job. I honestly think I could do at least as good, if not better, than him when it comes to making big league personnel decisions. His job is a lot more extensive than that, though. He’s basically responsible for everything related to running the front office of a ballclub – from setting up a business structure that can be successful, hiring good employees to run the different things (like the farm system, for instance), figuring out how to manage the data, reporting to his overseers, dealing with the press, dealing with his employees….etc. There’s a lot more to it than just personnel moves….
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
Isn't that a problem in and of itself?
It seems like those two skill sets, evaluating and executing baseball decisions and managing a sizable business, aren’t really one’s you’d expect to be overlaping. It seems a bit like asking a triathlete to win three individual races against a professional swimmer, a professional marathoner, and a professional cyclist.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
Yep. I think that’s why we’re seeing more smart people get jobs as GM’s as opposed to baseball people these days. There’s a lot to the job, and the things that make a good scout, for instance, often aren’t the same skills that make for a good GM….
I think you need a GM who is good at the management stuff/business end (with baseball knowledge as well of course), and understand their limitations and try to surround themselves with good people to fill in their weak spots. Also doing things like….you know, actual statistical research is good….
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 9:45 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, i agree with that. I often make the point that as fans we can simply say whatever we think but a GM will never do that for a whole host of reasons. You’re also right, rumours are just that and they’re put out by people will an ulterior motive. And we certainly don’t have all the information at hand that GM’s do.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
I think you have to remember here when you talk about what he’s doing this off season is that you’re dealing with rumors only. It’s not like Sabean is saying he’s made contract offers and phone calls to the players you mentioned, it’s others saying it. Sometimes these kind of “offers” can be completely made up by agents trying to convince other teams that many teams are interested in their clients. In the past we’ve heard rumors all over the place, and then when Sabean actually made a move, it was something completely different than what we had heard. Not only that, but when he actually does make a phone call to an agent is it just an fallback option phone call, or does he really badly want the player? In other words, I don’t think we can judge Sabean on what he’s doing this off season till he actually does it. That’s when we can start calling him an idiot and actually be fair about it!
No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you
Yes and no. When he directly tells Baggs or Schulman that he’s made contract offers to multiple players, and then Baggs goes on to say he’s pretty sure that that group includes some of DeRosa, Johnson, LaRoche, and Pods, that’s not a rumor. That’s information purposely floated at through the media to the fans partly on and partly off the record. To the degree to which it’s true or untrue falls along the line of manipulation to outright lie, not from rumor to fact. But since we know where the information is coming from, there are still messages to be gleaned whether the information is true or not.
By intentionally sending signals to the fans that they believe (even theoretically) that Pods, for instance, or DeRosa might add something to positive to the team (whether they’re ultimately signed are not) they are inviting us agree or disagree with that supposition. By informing us that they’ve put made some sort of offer to LaRoche while cutting Garko loose they invite us to heckle and insult their intelligence. And we have well and truly seized on that invitation, which is only right. They don’t ever need to sign LaRoche or Pods for these disagreements on theoretical value to be perfectly valid.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Except the role of the agents
which you don’t mention here. I’m sure agents float rumors all the time, to help create a demand for their clients. It’s uncertain who Schulman, Baggs, et al consult for these rumors. You can’t just assume it’s the FO of the team mentioned in said rumor.
Agents have huge roles in floating rumors, but I didn’t mention it because in this case the comments were so clearly sourced to the Giants FO. From the journalism speak I think we can assume that Baggs got some possible names from agents or other sources, went to confirm them with Sabean, was told that multiple offers were out there and when Baggs listed some possible names he confirmed that the offers were among that group (if he did deny any names Baggs had, those didn’t end up in the blog piece). That seems like a fairly easy piece of reassembling sourcing steps from journalistic subtext.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
DeRosa and LaRoche would both absolutely add something positive to the team so where’s the issue? Neither are perhaps worth what they’ll be paid, but both would add value in a vacuum it’s just we’re assuming we know the level of interest and the price they’d be prepared to pay. I don’t have much faith in Sabean being able to judge the correct price of business but it’s unfair to suggest that just because we show interest, it’s worthy of criticism.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
To clarify, I didn’t mention LaRoche in that sentence, I said Posednick and DeRosa. Posednick seems pretty obvious to me — without considering cost he’s likely less productive than the many mediocre choices we already have on the roster. As for DeRosa, if you compare him to Garko (who he would be hypothetically replacing) I think it’s highly arguable that he would add something positive — Garko was the more productive hitter last year and career-wise. If he were less productive then the guy who replaces then he’s subtracting from the team, not adding to it. Again, it’s an argument we could have. Pods presents no argument, IMHO. I agree with Grant’s front page article on that one.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
totally agree with you on Pods, DNW in any way, shape or form. However, I do think DeRosa would be a much more valuable player than Garko because of his versatility. The ability to hit 20-ish HR’s while bouncing between 3B, LF, 1B, 2B, and RF has a huge amount of value for a team IMHO.
BTW, the A’s just traded Bret Wallace to the Jays for Michael Taylor. Interesting.
Versitility is overrated.
Well, that’s not entirely true. Versitility is overrated if you’re not going to exploit it, and the Giants don’t look like they are.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
I really don’t know why you think the Giants’ wouldn’t use DeRosa in a variety of roles, depending on situation. He could be named, say, the starting left fielder, but when Sanchez, Panda, or (hopefully) Nick Johnson needs a day off he can bounce to those positions. He seems to be comfortable with that, and has done it well in the past.
Well i very much don’t want DeRosa and don’t think he adds anything over Garko (and quite possibly worse) and so I’m not going to argue for him. But it depends on what level the interest is or how high they’re willing to go with payroll. Perhaps we’re only looking to sign him as a utility infielder or perhaps we’re not really interested we actually want someone else but we’re using it to aid negotiations. Of course that’s doubtful and it’s understandable to fear the worse but I’m not going to get worked up or treat it as an issue unless something actually happens.
With Podsednik it’s harder to see how he’d help in any situation and i can’t think that interest in him would effect negotiations. So I’ve no idea why they’d express interest in him, although i guess a minor league contract wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
I do believe, as well, that when building a roster player’s personalities do have to be taken into account. Not at the expense of talent, but it does matter. How many of us have worked with a total A-Hole at work, but he was so good at his or her job that they were allowed to dominate the office? A similar person, who can’t produce at that level, is soon without a job. It’s easier to evaluate ball players because we have concrete stats to back up performance but all business is people business,
I agree with you, but I think the Giants’ just might place too much emphasis on personality at expense of talent. I’ve heard Neukom talk on several occasions about how the player fits in the clubhouse, and this would explain their complete non interest in someone like Milton Bradley. I think they’ve forgotten that they had their most recent success with a couple of supposedly bad clubhouse guys like Bonds and Kent.
No Edgar, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiot that plays you
I think it’s pretty clear the Giants are trying to make amends for having such a-holes on their team like Bonds and Kent almost to the detriment of their ballclub. Going out of their way to sign “gamers” and good clubhouse guys like Zito and Rowand to outlandish contracts have seriously hindered this team. But at least their PR image is good now amirite?!
That’s the biggest problem I have with this team, there are times when you can legitimately argue that this team cares a lot more about its PR and making a profit then they do about winning championships.
Especially when the best way to get good PR is to WIN A FREAKIN’ CHAMPIONSHIP! You’d think they would figure out that unpopular moves that help the team win are better overall than popular moves that push the team down, because most people invested in a team are happiest when they WIN, not when they have slumber parties and get matching tattoos that say “BFF”.
I think you’re right, especially in the case of Rowand. I think the Giants’ wanted an all hustle, easy to promote Anti-Bonds, and Rowand certainly fits the bill. He’s all hustle, crashing into walls, going 100%, and swinging at sliders three feet off the plate while trying to shit his pants. Bonds didn’t hustle all the time, was an asshole, and didn’t swing at pitches he couldn’t drive with a beautiful swing.
Is it possible that Neukom & Co. are incompetent when it comes to finding and acquiring talented management, or do they merely combine inexperience with exposure to information we are not privy to?
Frankly, I think they’re judging him on completely different criteria than we are. I’m only interested in winning baseball games. Ownership is interested in making money. Sabean’s job isn’t necessarily to win (though winning and money do have a tendency to go hand in hand), it’s to put butts in seats and keep Giants fans interested. To that degree, Sabean was actually successful last year to a degree. He kept the interest up through the whole season, without needing a large payroll to do so. So the point I’m making is I honestly, truly believe the set of circumstances used to judge Brian Sabean’s performance, set by the people in charge, are completely different than what variables we judge his performance on.
Sabean is not a good GM, but the status quo has been successful in making a good return for ownership, so they’ve had no reason to look further into it. They’re content. It just sucks for the fans that our franchise isn’t committed to winning the way a number of other franchises are. If we were, Brian Sabean would not still be running the show.
Agree except for the notion that Sabean wouldn’t still have a job. If they were really committed to winning then the context of his job and his performance expectations would be different, so thus he would probably go about doing his job in a different way I would think.
And if winning championships became the new context of Sabean’s job performane evaluation, the question you would have to ask yourself is: “Do I feel lucky”?
by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions
Even if Sabean’s priorities changed somewhat, I still believe him to be a very mediocre GM. Given how long he’s been around, by now he would have lost his job, I am pretty confident of that…
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 9:05 AM PST up reply actions
Wow, I am so glad to read this opinion about the Giants, it’s what I’ve settled on in terms of viewing the organization: they don’t care about winning. That is to say that the Giants don’t mind winning, they’re not against it, it’s just not their goal. How many times do we hear/read Sabean talking about “fielding a competitive team,” one that can compete in a division and maybe the playoffs. But you never hear anyone associated with the organization (including, surprisingly, the players) talk about wanting to win a World Series. Maybe the Giants are too… classy(?)… to make such pronouncements, but there it is: The San Francisco Giants don’t care about winning.
by Every6thDay on Dec 14, 2009 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
Look at the farm system
First i think that Sabean is doing what performance is going to be based on.
Ownership over the past 3 years has put a priority on developing a farm system that will translate to the big club. And I believe that Sabean has done that. Look the home grown talent that has come from our system (Lincecum, Cain, Sandoval, Posey). You can argue from that Sabean has done an excellent job of this. Of course there have been just as many busts but our farm system right now is in the top 5 and I would argue he has done an great job in this regard.
I believe Sabean’s deficiency comes from not being able to find value on the free agent market and getting taken by every single agent for what he is worth — for what it’s worth he seems to be resisting that this year (see pursuit of Jason Bay/Matt Holliday). I believe he has shown some growth. They fact that he’s even considering Nick Johnson should mean something whereas in previous years he would’ve been all in on LaRoche because his dingerz gland would’ve been throbbing.
The other thing I hate about him is his inablility to “win” any trades in recent memory. I remember his saying at last year’s trading deadline a conversation about Victor Martinez would have to start with Bumgarner. In fact that package Boston put together was equal to (in my opinion) Alderson/Barnes/+.
He seems to be stuck in a pre-Great Recession value mode. That is his deficiency.
He has his good and he has his bad. I’d like to see if we can get co-GM’s Sabean to handle the farm system and another to handle the free agent/trade market.
I remember his saying at last year’s trading deadline a conversation about Victor Martinez would have to start with Bumgarner. In fact that package Boston put together was equal to (in my opinion) Alderson/Barnes/+.
This is another thing I’ve been thinking about. I wonder what the perceived value of our minor leaguers are around the league. This is something almost impossible to know being on the outside. We think that Alderson/Barnes/+ is comparable, but what if those in the league don’t think so?
Not sure what to do about my screen name at this point...
by AngelWillSaveUs on Dec 13, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
Well, the best we can do is try to figure it out based on the information that is available to us. BA still had Alderson rated Top 50 in July right before we traded him, and while from what I’ve been told BA heavily listens to an organization about their own prospects, some of that is from what other teams are saying (anyone more knowledgeable feel free to add to the conversation)…
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
You don’t think that people like Baron?
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Dec 14, 2009 8:17 AM PST up reply actions
Am I just biased against Boston or does it seem to anyone else like everyone really overrates the shit out of Red Sox prospects ever since Pedroia and Ellsbury got called up and flourished?
Thing A
I think so, especially considering they really shouldn’t have a farm system that’s THAT strong when they’ve been so successful over the past few years, which leads to lower picks. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have a bad system, but it would suggest that their system isn’t as good as people think. The idea that they have a system which would allow them to deal for V-Mart while retaining the pieces for Halladay, and then after a Halladay deal retain some of their top prospects kind of makes it seem as if they’ve got 5-7 great prospects. Our system is rated pretty highly, and we definitely don’t have that many top guys.
High picks are nice for the first round, but after that, my impression is how much money you’re willing to spend is more important than how high in the round your pick is. The Red Sox can, and do, go after guys who drop looking for a bigger bonus. They spend the money necessary to restock their system.
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 9:06 AM PST up reply actions
I totally agree with you. Pedroia is a legit super star, but Ellsbury is a good platoon leadoff guy who steals bases and plays good defense with a sub .360 OBP. He’s a nice player, but not the Christ like figure ESPN would have us believe. I think Yankee prospects get consistently overrated in much the same fashion. Remember when Melky Cabrera was being touted as the centerpiece of every trade? He’s a fourth OF, but because he’s a Yankee everyone in the world should want him.
His D is suspect, actually.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Dec 14, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions
well not surprise
So is Christ’s. Holes in the hands.
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
I’m affraid to respond to this one. I hate religous debates with followers of organized religions.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Dec 14, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
Not that that’s you, zenbitz.
Matt Cain: throwing complete game shutouts since 06'. No big deal.
by cain1rstballothof on Dec 14, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
The difference is that I trust Re Sox prospects much more than Yankee prospects. The last crop of good prospects they had was in 97 and they were really really good. Recently, they have produced three really hyped bullpen arms.
say hey nation is the Ralph Nader of McC.-Xanthan
by say hey nation on Dec 14, 2009 8:55 AM PST up reply actions
but it does reinforce sam23’s post. Both org’s produce average prospects that generate far more hype than legit superstar prospects from nearly any other club. If Joba Chamberlan, Phil Hughes, or Jacoby Ellsbury played for the Royals we never would’ve heard of them.
I disagree. Lester. Papelbon. Youklis. Masterson. Bard. Buchholz. Okajima. The Red Sox system has produced quite a bit recently. Keep in mind they aren’t even spending that much anymore compared to what they were the last few years – it’s because they’ve gotten good, cheap production from their farm.
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions
you’re right, though Youklis was drafted by the A’s. I just get so tired of the hype machine surrounding ESPN’s pet teams that I overlook the good/great players that come up for them.
I don’t disagree that they had a hell of a run producing prospects in the last 3-7 years, but I just feel like guys like Buchholz, Masterson and Bard are extremely overrated and it seems like this next wave of guys coming up might be too. Like I said, maybe my judgement is clouded by my distaste for all the hype they get, but thats just sort of the general feeling I get.
Thing A
Well, Bard and Masterson both ptiched when I went to Fenway….man, Bard throws HARD. Dude’s got Brian Wilson velocity. He put up a solid FIP in the majors this year, his K numbers over the last couple seasons have been down right impressive….I’m not going to get into the overrated/underrated thing, because obviously that’s how you perceive they’re “rated”, but it looks to me like all the evidnece points to Bard as a legit relief prospect. I don’t even see any red flags in his stats.
Masterson throws kinda funky (could be to his advantage? I dunno, don’t want to speculate too much on a subject I’m not too knowledgeable about), but still gets decent velocity. Already has a career 4.3 FIP in the AL East. His numbers don’t suggest ace or anything, but certainly a useful and valuable player considering he’s making the league minimum. I would think his BB% is more likely to go down than up, not that I would count on a big change either way, but again, we’re looking at a starter, who’s basically free, who can give you pretty solid innings. Not a bad prospect at all.
As for Buchholz, good minor league numbers (some damn impressive K numbers), a no hitter at the big league level, a 4.5 FIP in almost 200 IP in the AL East….I can see why someone would like him. I guess if you think they’re perceived as Wieters/Posey/Heyward, then I can agree they’re not on that level, but I can definitely see why teams/analysts would really like them as prospects. They look like pretty sure bets to be solid contributors to me, with some potential to be more than that to me….
by Missing Barry on Dec 14, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
Hanley Ramirez?
Wouldn’t he count as a Red Sux product?
by VizquelQuest on Dec 14, 2009 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
If Joba Chamberlan, Phil Hughes, or Jacoby Ellsbury played for the Royals we never would’ve heard of them.
Yea that was kind of my point. I think you can throw Clay Buchholz and Michael Bowden in there too. I don’t know anything at all about Westmoreland, Casey Kelly, or Lars Anderson but I’m suspicious that none of them are as good as most would seem to like us to believe.
Thing A
yeah Red Sox and Yankee prospects are definitely overrated
but I think I would trust the Red Sox prospects more then the Yankee’s. I just think Boston is better at evaluating talent
Obviously ESPN loves the Yankees and Red Sox, so any good young guys are going to get more coverage on a national level. So, therefore their trade value increases because a GM who is looking to trade for prospects, not only wants good players, but also wants players that their fan base has heard of.
It’s easier for a GM to trade away a good major league player for prospects if the fan base is already aware who the minor leaguers are. I think it goes back to public relations, so I could see why a trade that seems equal in talent coming from the Red Sox would be preferred over the Giants or any other team that lacks national coverage.
by NateEveryday on Dec 14, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, I’d trust Sox prospects over Yankee prospects too, but I don’t feel like you hear about every single damn Yankee prospect in the national media like you do Red Sox prospects. If Thomas Neal was in the Red Sox organization I think he’d practically be a household name. The Yankee prospects are overrated too, but I dont feel like you hear quite as much about them.
Thing A
See, I disagree with that. Basically the only way I hear about prospects is by reading Keith Law and Baseball America chats at ESPN, and like half their questions are about Yankees prospects – most involving some stupid trade idea like Austin Jackson + 2 scrub prospects for Lincecum….
(The other half of the questions are obviously about Red Sox prospects)
by Missing Barry on Dec 15, 2009 7:20 AM PST up reply actions
you are soooo right about that. “Wouldn’t the Giants’ take our AA lifer for Matt Cain? We’re the Yankees!”
That is not the Yankees. It is their sycophantic fans and media
by E Ticket on Dec 15, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Cano?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Forgot about him. ME LIKEZ
say hey nation is the Ralph Nader of McC.-Xanthan
by say hey nation on Dec 14, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
This thread could very easily be summarized:
Sabean is a fucking moron. Will someone please grow some balls and fire his ass?
Why isn't Sabean held accountable for leading the Giants into many years of mediocrity???
Sabean’s the longest-tenured GM in baseball; that has to mean something. There must be something he’s doing that makes him good at what he does, doesn’t there?
Like any lifelong blowhard on Capitol Hill, his area of expertise is getting re-elected. Thats what he is really good at. Carrying the water of Larry Bud Selig Jr Baer, and the rest of the partners. Sign the players who keep the turnstiles turning and the comcast cablecasts, casting.
Just as long as those special interests keep writing checks, Senator Snort keeps his hold on his seat and continues to freely consort with the rest of his pals.
Folks have to understand that while there may be 100 U.S. Senators, the most exclusive country club in the world, there are only 30 Major League General Managers — and Sabean is the most senior. If you think of Sabean in those terms, you will see that when we talk oranges he talks peeled grapes
Every single move he makes, or doesn’t make, is in that context.
“At all costs, it is about me keeping power.”
That is why he, like any multi-termed politico from an election-proof state or district, who basically have their seats for life, treat their real constituents like shit, and spend their energy on the guys who write the checks and control the block votes, as well as keeping a lid on any potential adversary.
That is why he lashes out at kids like Ishikawa, Garko, Frandsen, Niekro, Burris, Lewis, Correia, Aardsma, Nathan, and Accardo when things go wrong. They are disposable, dispensable, interchangeable parts. Note how fast he gets to trashing departed players. No matter how subtle, Sabean always has to get his digs in. It is a common trait amongst egomaniacs, to sleight somebody when you part company, to rationalize the parting of the ways as a way to build one’s self up by tearing the other person down.
He doesn’t lash out at Zito or Rowand or Winn or Roberts, or even Bonds. His bosses have too much money tied up in those guys and it would be job suicide to publicly roast guys his bosses have staked small fortunes on. So it suits his purpose to trash the powerless, minimum wagers and guys like Garko, who have the audacity and smarts to challenge a butt-kissing, stupido like Bochy, a guy who finds it nearly impossible to speak coherently, let alone foster the kind of leadership that championship teams require.
Or is it possible that the ownership knows nothing about what makes a good GM, and simply continue to employ Sabean because he’s been doing this awhile, and not on the strength of his individual accomplishments?
This is a rhetorical question, right?
by E Ticket on Dec 14, 2009 9:29 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
Needs more green.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Dec 14, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
My adopted son Larry Baer will respond to these accusations as soon as he is done counting your hard-earned money.
"It's too late now."
by ResDog on Dec 14, 2009 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That make my coffee clean my nose hairs.
/ tips cap.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
by daveinexile on Dec 14, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t actually think the fact that Sabean is the longest-tenured GM in baseball means anything; I just had to give due consideration to that belief, because I think it’s a decent argument. And the second one was sort of a rhetorical question; I wanted input, but I’m pretty sure Sabean was rehired because Neukom only just took over the team and he really doesn’t know what he’s doing yet, so hiring the established guy is the safe route.
I know. I read hour entire post. It is pretty apparent that you have about as much use for his reign of error as I do. :D
by E Ticket on Dec 15, 2009 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree with a lot of this post
But it was very well written and nicely structured.
Well done!
WHY IS BOCOCK?!
by Lars The Wanderer on Dec 14, 2009 10:23 AM PST reply actions
Of course, when considering whether you’d be a good GM (and this is what Bill Simmons never thinks about whenever he campaigns to be an NBA GM) is all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. A General Manager is exactly what the name says: a manager. Pretty much everybody works for you and you have to manage everything that goes on from both personnel and administrative work (paperwork, payrolls, etc.). It’s not just a uy sitting behind a desk thinking rosterbating.
Bruce Bochy would like you to look at the career numbers and stop complaining.
Bob Howry's #1 (and only) fan!!!
The Merkin Valdez of McCovey Chronicles!!!!!!
Perhaps Sabean is just a Dodger Mole
Maybe he is working for someone else the entire time. I cannot think of any other reason why he continues to make the moves he makes. Luckily for giants fans his move of Matt Williams turned out better than we hoped for, but the giants were lucky that kent continued to improve whille batting either in front or behind Barry Bonds. Kent remained durable, and Williams started to be injury prone. Uribe turned out to be better than planned, although he blew Sanchez’s perfect game. Sabes is impulsive, vindictive, and very old school. Its like trying to race in the Indy with a horse and buggy.
+1
Also, Bill Simmons’ campaign to be a GM really bugs me for some reason. Actually, Bill Simmons just really bugs me.
Thing A
Agreed! I can’t stand Simmons. I was at the book store recently, and I was actually intrigued by what I heard about his book (some people were comparing it to a basketball moneyball?), so I read some….he takes forever to tell a story, it’s the exact opposite of moneyball – Simmons is pretty much like the GM that desperately tries to hold on to how things use to be before Moneyball philosophies started changing baseball (Hmm….sound familiar?) in the way he argues some of his ridiculous points….
It’s just brutal.
by Missing Barry on Dec 15, 2009 7:22 AM PST up reply actions
His interview on the Today show sucked! It was basically BASEBALL SUCKS, FOOTBALL SUCKS, SOCCER SUCKS, BASKETBAL RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
say hey nation is the Ralph Nader of McC.-Xanthan
by say hey nation on Dec 15, 2009 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
Is he the same guy?
I appreciate the diatribe about how bad he’s been. To me, the puzzling thing is how there seems to be both a Good Sabean and a Bad Sabean. How has the guy who pulled off trades for Jason Schmidt, Robb Nen, and (my favorite deal) Ellis Burks gone on to pull the stinkers you mention?
Has there been some fundamental change? Or does his whole career look affected by luck which seemingly divides into a first half and second half?
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
It is almost like he purposely stoped targeting players under 30 after 2002. Of the 3 names you put down there only one was over 29 when he came to the Giants ( Nenn & Schmidt were 28 & Burks 33). The institance of none to little play time for the demeographic most likely to have a positive break out season is realy quiet baffleing to me. It is almost like once Baker left so did any sense Sabean had.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
Players over 30
I remember discussion in the past that there had been some studies that players over 30 were under-valued and Sabean was considered an expert at find value in those guys. That coupled with the “Bonds window” and “win now” environment probably lead him down this path.
It seems since Nuke’em took over, there has been an about face from the stuff of the Magowan era.
I think that’s what people forget; Sabean isn’t the ultimate boss, the owners are and ultimately decide the team’s approach.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
I remember discussion in the past that there had been some studies that players over 30 were under-valued and Sabean was considered an expert at find value in those guys.
I was just writing the same point as yours posted. I also note that it might have made sense when PDA’s extended old guys’ careers, but clearly the boat sailed on that strategy even if Sabean doesn’t seem to realize it.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
Oops
PED’s, I mean. The iPhones, Crackberries, and Blackjacks probably didn’t have much to do with it.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
I think there's been a shift, but it's not going to happen over night
If a GM were to say “We’re not going to sign any FA over 30”, he’d be a fool since there aren’t that many out there. (One reason I REALLY wanted Texieria last year.)
I do think there’s been an effort to aquire players “around 30” and avoid guys in their late 30s. Last season, he got R. Johnson (45), Howry (35) and Renteria (33), but everyone else he got was 31 or younger. ( Affeldt, Miller, Medders, Penny, F. Sanchez, Uribe, Torres, Garko)
In 2008, the team’s average age was 29.8. It dropped to 29.1 last season and now we have Molina, Johnson, Aurilia and Winn leaving, so the team is continuing to get younger.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
I am not looking at this an attempt to exploit a perceived market under valuing of over 30 year olds ( ala OCG’s point of view). I am Strictly looking at this has thumbing through the rosters after 2002 ( something I was doing a couple weeks ago) and before 2002 and seeing what players were brought in and given significant amounts of playing time ( say 600 or more innings). It was a stunning difference even for a squad pursuing a perceived market barging and this partern of choice seems to be going on still. And it is not like pre 2003 the under 30 guys brought in were Free Agents, most were not, it is like he just flat out decided that position players under 30 were too be avoided at almost all costs.
Who’s brain did you bring me?
Brain SabeanOranother.
and given significant amounts of playing time
I blame the manager more for playing time decisions.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
You know I’ve always thought there was some bizarrely circular logic being applied to the argument that the “win now” environment was to blame for the team getting worse. I mean a mandate is a mandate. If I went up to my boss after a dismal failure and tried “How am I supposed to Win Now! when I’m clearly under orders to Win Now!?” I really don’t think they’d be too supportive of my position.
The team didn’t sink into sub-mediocrity because of an environment or a philosophy or a plan, but rather because of a series of poor choices in attempting to execute that plan.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I do think you are partially correct, but after 2004 I think there was a sense of desperation with Bonds’ window closing, and that’s what led to the poor choices. We won’t know if that was McGowan, Bear, Sabean, or all of them feeling that crush but that’s what it seems to be. When you’re desperate, you overpay and often underperform.
The team didn’t sink into sub-mediocrity because of an environment or a philosophy or a plan, but rather because of a series of poor choices in attempting to execute that plan.
This statement should be framed in Sabean’s office.
While it’s true that ownership has just as much responsibility for the poor approach the front office took, especially 2002-present, it is no excuse for the players Sabean targeted.
Trading for Pierzyski is a popular one to throw in his face, but when you figure that the Giants didn’t really need a catcher, and they likely could have aquired Derrek Lee from the Marlins with a similar offer, it’s pretty embarrassing. Signing Alfonzo to replace Kent, giving Neifi Perez a major league contract let alone a 2 year deal, Giving away the giants top 3 picks in the best draft of the decade, giving Dave Roberts a 3 YEAR DEAL. The list could go on. Everyone questioned these moves back when they happened, and throw them in his face now, deservedly so.
The “Win Now” approach did not handcuff Sabean. He simply made a series of horrilble aquisitions, and has since been rewarded with a contract I would only expect for himself.
by NateEveryday on Dec 15, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
I remember those studies as well
I think they were dealing with players substantially over 30, more like players over 35.
The problem was that even if those players were undervalued on the market, they still had very limited upside. Paying $10 for a mint 1988 Nova may be a bargain, but you’re still stuck driving a freaking Nova.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
(good) players under 30
and not usually available.
Prospects, sorta. But see, they aren’t players (yet)
FIRE BRIAN SABEAN... UNLESS HE KEEPS DRAFTING WELL. .. AND SIGNS UNDERRATED PLAYERS LIKE AFFELDT OR PHELPS. .. OR ALRIGHT WHO'S PLAYING WITH THE ALIEN MIND-SWITCHING RAY?
-------
PARPG- Indy post-apocalyptic roleplaying game currently in early planning stages.
Targeting
I wonder if there’s been a study about finding the sweet spot of market pricing with regard to trading for guys counting down to their free agency year. For example, the A’s got a ton more for Mark Mulder and his extra year than they got for Tim Hudson. Or it seemed that way, anyway, at the time.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
Happened on both trades though… Daric Barton came in the Mulder trade and Dan Meyer got hurt after the Hudson trade. The only expected and actual standout was Haren.
But I agree taking the unpredictable out is the right thing to do. That’s why I referred to how the trades looked at the time, and at the time the Mulder trade appeared to bring back substantially more for that extra year. Heck, I think it’s even fair to say that Hudson was a better talent straight up at the time.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
One issue to consider is that we had a shockingly bad farm system in the years following 2002 and so that led to more over-30 signings. The reason being that we didn’t have internal candidates from the farm and so needed free agent additions (and they tend to be over 30) and didn’t have the quality on the farm to trade for players of good value (and younger players have higher value) Of course that doesn’t excuse the lack of farm system but I’m sure that was a contributory reason.
Also there’s been somewhat a change in recent times as younger players are valued much more highly than they were and so to acquire younger players by trade and also in free agency (teams like to lock up younger players in their first few free agent years) is harder now than it was.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
another factor
I think in the crappy post-2002 years is that the team would never admit they were out of it and held on to guys instead of trading them. We badly needed to re-stock the farm system, but in 2005 and 2006 we failed to make deadline deals to dump vets for prospects. I still think we could have gotten a lot back for Durham and Schmidt, but the FO pretended we were"in it" and didn’t wave the white flag.
A hearty thank you to Rich Aurilia for all the good memories, and to the Niners for finally getting the uni's (mostly) right.
Best year for transition
Sure. When it comes to pointing the finger at transition years, I always thought that 2007 would be a perfect year to scrap-and-rebuild except for Barry Bonds. Let his chase for Hank plus hosting the All-Star game sell tickets and you essentially get a free pass on everything else.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
by achiappanza on Dec 16, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I rememebr Sabean discussing dealing Schmidt and complaiing that they couldn’t get jack diddly for him.
This is an example of what I’ve discussed before about none of us really know what options a GM has before him.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
Stats Aren't Everything
Look, I shutter at the thought of Sabean’s bad moves over the years. He’s a very mediocre GM (at best).
BUT – I’m a little surprised at the seemingly ubiquitous view here that blind statistics rule and that there are no other factors at work (other than age and random luck).
Sabean seems to have little reasoning other than “AH LIKEZ DIS GUY HE GUD!”
I’m pro Johnson (um, nick Johnson), and con Rosa/Roche, but I can also appreciate a talent evaluator’s opinion to cut one guy like Garko and pay more (albeit a reasonable amount more) to another with similar stats.
Given he recently non-tendered Garko, his motivation in pursuing the same player for more money is mysterious.
Because Garko has one glaring mark on his resume:
He played like $HIT for the Giants. And despite the small sample size, that should still factor into the decision, because shit happens and shit can continue to happen for strange reasons. Don’t tell me psychology doesn’t have a lot to do with sports achievement.
If Bochy hadn’t benched Garko, everyone would be complaining that he’s playing the gamer-verteran over Shier/Ishi/Bowker despite the total SUCK Garko was displaying (a lot like Renteria).
Sometimes players do just need a change in venue.
Maybe it’s magic, the manager, the field, the seagulls, or just a lack of confidence brought on by a bad-luck slump. Whatever. Point is, there’s a good chance Garko returns to form, but there’s also a very good chance that he just blows at being a Giant and needs the boot.
Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.
So it seems like the question comes down to, “What does it cost you to find out?” Hence the various POV’s on both Sanchez and Garko’s option years.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
but there’s also a very good chance that he just blows at being a Giant and needs the boot
That is very, very unlikely, and if you’re making your decision based on things like that, you’re doing it wrong. I’m not ruling out the possibility of Garko just not being good anymore, mind you – it’s that players don’t play bad simply because they’re on one team. Ability has a funny way of translating from team to team, once you get adequate sample sizes. You can try to come up with all the explanations you want to explain the why of sample error, but they’re really just irrelevant. It’s not that some explanation of psychology can’t exist – it’s that we’ve studied so many ballplayers, and we have a good idea how they behave, on average. The why doesn’t even matter – because claiming you know the why is claiming you know more than you actually do. The best you can do is play the percentages correctly, and that’s the whole point of stats.
And just for the record – there is room for evaluation to supplement statistical decision making, all you have to do is look at the forecasting systems; one of the forecasters (the Chone guy, maybe? I forget which specifically) picked out guys who’s projections just looked wrong, and more times than not, he picked correctly. That’s fine. What you have to keep in mind is these guys are still the exception. Decision making based on thoughts that Garko might just not like playing at AT&T is flawed, because more times than not, we’re not going to have any clue if that’s really what’s behind it or not.
So basically, what it comes down to is this:
And despite the small sample size, that should still factor into the decision
You’re essentially saying “despite knowing that this stuff just tends to happen in those kinds of sample sizes and players usually ‘regress back to the mean’, as we call it, we should treat it as more meaningful than it is”….
“The more you know, the more you realize how much you don’t know”
by Missing Barry on Dec 16, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions
in short sightedness
100 ABs means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, period.
Maybe 10 ABs, but not 100. That’s something. Maybe in 400 ABs in 2010 he would have regressed, but maybe not.
Those 100 ABs gave us ALL some doubt compared to what we thought when the trade happened.
And that’s something.
Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.
by Cannonballden on Dec 17, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
Exactly. It is just the exception, not the rule, but some players just play better in certain places and certain situations. Some players are better under pressure, some play better during the day, some are better in the playoffs, and others are worse.
In almost even plate appearances, Ishikawa had an OPS of .935 at home, .471 on the road.
Rowan had an OPS of .718 at home, .754 on the road.
Pablo had an OPS of 1.012 at home, .877 on the road. (tOPS+ 114 vs. tOPS+ 86)
Schierholtz had an OPS of .677 at home, .720 on the road.
Bengi had an ops of .856 at home, .610 away.
Winn:OPS .585 Home, .749 away and tOPS+ 75 home and 123 away.
Flew: OPS .802 Home, .674 away and tOPS+ 118 home and 82 away.
Renteria had an OPS of .615 at home, .653 on the road.
Velez’s numbers are almost identical .711 vs. .704.
Don’t tell me its that pac bell was “made for” Ishikawa but not Schierholtz.
There ARE other factors involved, and you can’t always just look at hard statistics, so I applaud my favorite two people in the world Brian Montgomery Sabean and Bruce Bobblehead Bochy, at least in this one instance.
The warriors are usually competitive against the spurs at home, but are awful in San Antonio.
Do you think the hoops are rigged? Are the dubs always tired or ending a back-to-back? Or could it be a confidence issue as well?
Like I said, I don’t know why Garko stunk during his short time as a Giant, but this board acts like its guaranteed that with a large enough sample size, all players will regress to the mean, or fall back toward their career stats and that looking at other factors is meainingless.
Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.
by Cannonballden on Dec 17, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
but this board acts like its guaranteed that with a large enough sample size, all players will regress to the mean, or fall back toward their career stats and that looking at other factors is meainingless.
It’s all about distributions. It’s the whole concept and raison d’etre for statistics….
I really don’t know how to explain it to you without trying to give a semesters worth of information in a paragraph or two, which I don’t think will come out very clearly….
by Missing Barry on Dec 18, 2009 12:08 AM PST up reply actions
Regress to the mean
It’s not that you can’t be right, it’s that there really isn’t enough evidence to feel convinced about it now.
There are players who don’t regress to the mean, it’s true. Of course all the ones I can think of now turned out to be juicers.
"The questions are so stupid. I don't believe in rivalries. I don't believe in curses. Wake up the damn Bambino, maybe I'll drill him in the ass."
- Pedro Martinez, asked about the Curse of the Bambino
by achiappanza on Dec 18, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
TOWARD the mean
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
In almost even plate appearences,
Ishikawa had an OPS of 644 in the 6th inning and 568 in the 7th
Rowand had an OPS of 613 in the 3rd inning and 810 in the 5th
Winn had an OPS of 1074 in Petco Park and 618 in Coors Field
Molina had an OPS of 859 against the Pirates and 544 against the Nationals
There are factors in splits (players generally perform better at home, they’ll play better in hitters parks, etc). If you’re looking at small samples you can’t discern the type of effects you’re suggesting above statistical fluctuations.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
