Comments on: GMs and Rebuilding Time

By: KF

KF — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:41:50 +0000

Also I think it’s worth pointing out that all the teams you mention were in the upper or middle ten teams in payroll in their respective years, with the exception of the small-market Indians (21st in 2012 and 2013) and last year’s mid-market D-Backs. Even if we take it case-by-case, these were underachieving mid-to-large market teams with a lot of talent (both homegrown and purchased) already on the MLB roster. Small market teams like the Brewers, Reds, Pirates, Rays, etc. aren’t having these swings. Their rises and falls are much more linear. In fact, the 2017 Brewers and the 2013 Royals are the only small market teams I could point to recently with this kind of jump in wins. Obviously that portends well for the Brewers. But those jumps aren’t being made, and the ones you point to from the larger market or higher payroll teams, by adding salaries. It’s largely because of player development.

By: KF

KF — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:20:21 +0000

I keep a spreadsheet which ranks every current “final sayer” in baseball right now (so I can rank them!) and in a few instances list a GM like Forst or Evans (who both are near the top) along with their superior. I’ve done some research (internet of course, I don’t have MLB contacts either) into these power structures and it’s tough to determine, but I think I can say who’s in charge definitively for about 26–27 teams. But yeah, we can’t make those assumptions about PoBOs and GMs, because there are teams with GMs who don’t have PoBOs (like the Brewers since Stearns’ hire), teams with PoBOs and no titled GM (the Red Sox since Hazen left), or teams who have one person holding both titles (several, and also the Brewers under Melvin).

Happy to share my list if you’re interested.

By: KF

KF — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:10:35 +0000

To be fair, I could see a team like the Phillies or maybe even the Padres or Reds make a 15–20 win swing next season based on development of their controlled players, combined with some shrewd personnel moves, but NOT through adding payroll. Sound like a certain recent ballclub in Wisconsin?

By: Nicholas Zettel

Nicholas Zettel — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:08:07 +0000

So I think this is a valid point, but I don’t have a good method of diving into details on actual MLB power structures. So I either assume every President serves the same function as a GM, or every GM serves a similar function. It’s a tough distinction I glazed over, but without detailed industry contacts it’s a very difficult conceptual problem to solve. Perhaps in future I would divide the batch into “Teams with Presidents” and “Teams without Presidents.”

By: Nicholas Zettel

Nicholas Zettel — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:05:17 +0000

I think the 90-loss to 90-Win thing does need to be case by case. It’s simply happening a lot, be it after the 2012 Orioles and 2012 Cleveland teams, the Red Sox fluctuations 2012-2016, the 2017 Dbacks, and close calls with the 2015 Astros and 2017 Rockies. That’s more than 10% of the recent playoff clubs (2013-present), and while it’s a small number I would not say it’s an insignificant phenomenon. The point I could have made clearer, which I think you stated well, is that there’s little reason for a big, multi-year building effort in many many cases.

By: KF

KF — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:46:39 +0000

You changed my mind a bit about Duquette (who I’m oft-critical of given his disdain for international spending) to the point where I don’t think he’s a bottom ten GM in the game, but there’s still a good 13 GM/PoBOs I’ll take over him.

The statement about “90-loss clubs being 90-win clubs” with proper resource management is one I just can’t agree with, no matter how much I think about it. I look at 90-loss teams this year, and even when I forget about limitations these teams’ ownerships gave their GMs on payroll, I can’t figure out a way for the Phillies or Padres (teams with good farm systems) to make that big a swing through paying for MLB talent via trades or free agency. Even if the small market Reds had a huge budget to work with, how do you expect them to sign enough free agents or trade for enough major league players to improve by 20+ games? By the way, the answer to these questions is definitely not with new coaching staff.

Large market teams like the Mets, Tigers, Giants, and perhaps even the White Sox have less of an excuse here. These teams did spend at the major league level with awful results, so you can credit faulty roster management and even coaching more easily. These teams don’t need a 3+ year, Cubs-esque rebuilding process to return to the postseason. One doesn’t need to squint to see the Giants or Mets in the playoffs next year, or even the White Sox in two.

So clubs definitely become “out of the running” on a micro level (as a season wears on) but if you mean on a macro level, you have a point. When some Brewers fans I know bemoaned the Gomez trade, and the beginning of the 2015 rebuild, complaining they’d be terrible until 2020, I shook my head and asked them what their problem was. I knew this rebuild wouldn’t take long, because as you point out, 3 years is perhaps on the high end. The Brewers’ “rock bottom” in 2015 was much higher than those points of the Astros and Cubs in 2010–12 given the state of their minor league system (which wasn’t even good, just not abysmal) and the lack of albatross contracts on the MLB roster. At the time I even said they’d be in the playoffs, or at least the playoff conversation, in 2017.

By: KF

KF — Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:26:53 +0000

I think The Process (lol) by which you reached your conclusions is good. Your conclusions I take some issue with, but first I think it’s worth pointing out that some of the GMs you took data from and even used as examples are not heads of their team’s baseball operations department. This might not change your results or conclusions, but it’s debatable how much influence they have.

Most egregiously the mention of Girsch, who probably shouldn’t even be in this article given he works under Mozeliak, plus certainly Hoyer is subordinate to Epstein, who receives credit for Chicago’s rebuild and title (as Luhnow does in Houston). Zaidi (under Friedman), Horst (Beane), Atkins (Shapiro), Chernoff (Antonetti) have dubious places in your reasoning too, as they operate as GMs underneath a president of baseball ops, who were GMs of those teams themselves and just promoted/given a fancy title (Melvin was too, but had no GM under him). Neander (Silverman) might fall under this too, but the power structure in the Rays’ front office is tough to figure out. Evans I’ll consider the nominal head of baseball ops in San Fran as Sabean ceded day-to-day ops to him to instead focuses on player evals and such, but Sabean may indeed still have the final say there.