Re: Cubs Step up pursuit of Byrd

[UK1679666180]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

How many of those teams have either replaced their front office or been more productive than the Cubs in that timeframe?

 

Yankees-More productive than the Cubs over the last 7 years.

Red Sox-New FO & much more productive over the last 7 years.

Mets-New FO

Angels-New FO

Dodgers-New FO

Phillies-New FO and more productive

Cardinals-New FO and more productive

Mariners-New FO

Braves-New FO

[SouthSideRyan]

Marignal wins cost more the higher you go. The Mets and Mariners are the only ones the Cubs compare favorably to in that post. The Mariners were run by manure for brains Bavasi, and the Mets are a [expletive]. Beating those 2 out is nothing to be proud of.

[Shilzzz]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 7 playoff app

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M, 2 WS app, 2 Championship, 6 playoff app

3 New York Mets $1.5M, 0 WS app, last app 2000 (L), last WS Champ 1986, 1 playoff app

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M, 1 WS app, 1 Championship, 6 playoff app

5 Los Angeles Dodgers$1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1988 (W), 4 playoff app

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1945, (L), last WS Champ 1908, 3 playoff app

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app N/A, entered MLB 1977, 0 playoff app

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M, 0 WS app, last app 1999, 4 playoff app

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 3 playoff app

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 4 playoff app

 

Keyword is efficiency.

 

Thing is, this isn't about 'being in line with other big payroll teams,' it's about winning the world series. As far as that goes, over the last 7 years we are in the bottom half with 4 other teams who have not appeared. Rhetoric about the playoffs being a crap shoot and that the most important thing is to appear leaves the Cubs tied for 7th with Philadephia with 3, ahead of the dismal Mets, who have a truly awful front office that doesn't understand team building (though they still made a WS appearance this decade), and a Mariners team who is turning a corner after letting Blavaski go. So, really, the only teams of these ten that I'd consider the Cubs to be ahead of, during this stretch, would be the Mariners and Mets. To take this a step further, I would have to believe that the Cubs currently are only ahead of the Mets, and really aren't better than by much, if at all, as Seattle has really started to take a great approach towards market inefficiencies under their new GM, fielding arguably the greatest defending team of all time (certainly the best defense since Fangraphs began keeping UZR ratings at least), to which point there is a good read here.

 

Like any statistic, dollars per win paints a very narrow view of the whole. 2008 and 2003 were very well constructed teams, and i'd even say that 2004 should have been a great squad. But even then Hendry made himself look foolish by bullheadedly keeping Baker as manager when it had become clear that Dusty was at least partly responsible for murdering our young arms, was a poor game manager, and let the clubhouse go wild.

 

Furthermore, Hendry has never had any visible foresight, or long term goal. He leaps ideologically year to year, either apathetic towards or ignorant of future costs. No reasonable person here is going to say that Hendry is the worst general manager in all of baseball. But most reasonable people would agree that he wastes resources to whimsically, seemingly assuming that the bottom of the well is always deeper. God forbid he was on a small market team, because then you'd see his executive flaws magnified even more.

[Backtobanks]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 7 playoff app

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M, 2 WS app, 2 Championship, 6 playoff app

3 New York Mets $1.5M, 0 WS app, last app 2000 (L), last WS Champ 1986, 1 playoff app

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M, 1 WS app, 1 Championship, 6 playoff app

5 Los Angeles Dodgers$1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1988 (W), 4 playoff app

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1945, (L), last WS Champ 1908, 3 playoff app

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app N/A, entered MLB 1977, 0 playoff app

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M, 0 WS app, last app 1999, 4 playoff app

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 3 playoff app

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 4 playoff app

 

Keyword is efficiency.

 

Thing is, this isn't about 'being in line with other big payroll teams,' it's about winning the world series. As far as that goes, over the last 7 years we are in the bottom half with 4 other teams who have not appeared. Rhetoric about the playoffs being a crap shoot and that the most important thing is to appear leaves the Cubs tied for 7th with Philadephia with 3, ahead of the dismal Mets, who have a truly awful front office that doesn't understand team building (though they still made a WS appearance this decade), and a Mariners team who is turning a corner after letting Blavaski go. So, really, the only teams of these ten that I'd consider the Cubs to be ahead of, during this stretch, would be the Mariners and Mets. To take this a step further, I would have to believe that the Cubs currently are only ahead of the Mets, and really aren't better than by much, if at all, as Seattle has really started to take a great approach towards market inefficiencies under their new GM, fielding arguably the greatest defending team of all time (certainly the best defense since Fangraphs began keeping UZR ratings at least), to which point there is a good read here.

 

Like any statistic, dollars per win paints a very narrow view of the whole. 2008 and 2003 were very well constructed teams, and i'd even say that 2004 should have been a great squad. But even then Hendry made himself look foolish by bullheadedly keeping Baker as manager when it had become clear that Dusty was at least partly responsible for murdering our young arms, was a poor game manager, and let the clubhouse go wild.

 

Furthermore, Hendry has never had any visible foresight, or long term goal. He leaps ideologically year to year, either apathetic towards or ignorant of future costs. No reasonable person here is going to say that Hendry is the worst general manager in all of baseball. But most reasonable people would agree that he wastes resources to whimsically, seemingly assuming that the bottom of the well is always deeper. God forbid he was on a small market team, because then you'd see his executive flaws magnified even more.

 

If the key is to win the WS, then people like Epstein were idiots this year because they didn't win the WS. I'm not defending Hendry, but it is interesting that posters throw around statistics like it's the gospel until the statistics disprove their point and then we need to re-analyze the statistics to show that those statistics are inaccurate.

[17 Seconds]

yeah, dave's post was obtuse again, but you can't say a gm is judged by whether or not they own the WS. he can't control that. all he can control is the team he puts on the field. once the playoffs start, there's nothing he can do.hendry doesn't deserve less credit for the 2008 cubs just because they failed to show up for the playoffs. that's not on him.

[Shilzzz]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 7 playoff app

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M, 2 WS app, 2 Championship, 6 playoff app

3 New York Mets $1.5M, 0 WS app, last app 2000 (L), last WS Champ 1986, 1 playoff app

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M, 1 WS app, 1 Championship, 6 playoff app

5 Los Angeles Dodgers$1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1988 (W), 4 playoff app

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app 1945, (L), last WS Champ 1908, 3 playoff app

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M, 0 WS app, last app N/A, entered MLB 1977, 0 playoff app

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M, 0 WS app, last app 1999, 4 playoff app

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 3 playoff app

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M, 2 WS app, 1 Championship, 4 playoff app

 

Keyword is efficiency.

 

Thing is, this isn't about 'being in line with other big payroll teams,' it's about winning the world series. As far as that goes, over the last 7 years we are in the bottom half with 4 other teams who have not appeared. Rhetoric about the playoffs being a crap shoot and that the most important thing is to appear leaves the Cubs tied for 7th with Philadephia with 3, ahead of the dismal Mets, who have a truly awful front office that doesn't understand team building (though they still made a WS appearance this decade), and a Mariners team who is turning a corner after letting Blavaski go. So, really, the only teams of these ten that I'd consider the Cubs to be ahead of, during this stretch, would be the Mariners and Mets. To take this a step further, I would have to believe that the Cubs currently are only ahead of the Mets, and really aren't better than by much, if at all, as Seattle has really started to take a great approach towards market inefficiencies under their new GM, fielding arguably the greatest defending team of all time (certainly the best defense since Fangraphs began keeping UZR ratings at least), to which point there is a good read here.

 

Like any statistic, dollars per win paints a very narrow view of the whole. 2008 and 2003 were very well constructed teams, and i'd even say that 2004 should have been a great squad. But even then Hendry made himself look foolish by bullheadedly keeping Baker as manager when it had become clear that Dusty was at least partly responsible for murdering our young arms, was a poor game manager, and let the clubhouse go wild.

 

Furthermore, Hendry has never had any visible foresight, or long term goal. He leaps ideologically year to year, either apathetic towards or ignorant of future costs. No reasonable person here is going to say that Hendry is the worst general manager in all of baseball. But most reasonable people would agree that he wastes resources to whimsically, seemingly assuming that the bottom of the well is always deeper. God forbid he was on a small market team, because then you'd see his executive flaws magnified even more.

 

If the key is to win the WS, then people like Epstein were idiots this year because they didn't win the WS. I'm not defending Hendry, but it is interesting that posters throw around statistics like it's the gospel until the statistics disprove their point and then we need to re-analyze the statistics to show that those statistics are inaccurate.

 

Ok, well you said nothing of value. In no way did I imply that 'Epstein was an idiot this year' because they didn't win the WS. Pointing out that the Red Sox have won two WS under his watch should have suggested that. What I said is that Hendry is an inefficient GM. Also, I mentioned that any singular statistic creates a 'narrow view' of one particular aspect, so, again, you are not disagreeing with me. Statistics are the closest thing we have to any 'gospel', though, because it's the only hard evidence we can use to quantify performance. So when I took evidence further than dollar/win to analyze Hendry's performance since 2002, I figured it would give a greater picture of what his value as GM of the Cubs is. As I said, he is not the worst GM in baseball. However, I believe his reputation as a good GM benefits from heading a large market team that has been very well marketed over the last decade. He has had his moments, sure, but my opinion is that he lucked up on at least a couple of those moves, which he should be credited for, just not to the degree some grant him.

[Shilzzz]

It is about winning the World Series, and if you don't believe that, then I'm not sure why you'd be a baseball fan.

[17 Seconds]

It is about winning the World Series, and if you don't believe that, then I'm not sure why you'd be a baseball fan.

 

for the team it's about winning the world series. ultimately, a gm can't control what his team does in the playoffs. all he does is build a team and then hope they perform when it matters.

 

if the 2008 cubs had shown up for the playoffs and won the world series, would that have meant jim hendry had built a better team? no, it still would have been the same team he built.

 

let me ask you something. who deserves more credit-

 

walt jocketty for building the 2006 cards (won 83 games, but also the world series)

 

jim hendry for building the 2008 cubs (97 wins, swept in the first round)

 

?

[erik316wttn]

It is about winning the World Series, and if you don't believe that, then I'm not sure why you'd be a baseball fan.

 

for the team it's about winning the world series. ultimately, a gm can't control what his team does in the playoffs. all he does is build a team and then hope they perform when it matters.

 

if the 2008 cubs had shown up for the playoffs and won the world series, would that have meant jim hendry had built a better team? no, it still would have been the same team he built.

 

let me ask you something. who deserves more credit-

 

walt jocketty for building the 2006 cards (won 83 games, but also the world series)

 

jim hendry for building the 2008 cubs (97 wins, swept in the first round)

 

?

 

Which season would you rather take as a fan?

[USSoccer]

It is about winning the World Series, and if you don't believe that, then I'm not sure why you'd be a baseball fan.

 

for the team it's about winning the world series. ultimately, a gm can't control what his team does in the playoffs. all he does is build a team and then hope they perform when it matters.

 

if the 2008 cubs had shown up for the playoffs and won the world series, would that have meant jim hendry had built a better team? no, it still would have been the same team he built.

 

let me ask you something. who deserves more credit-

 

walt jocketty for building the 2006 cards (won 83 games, but also the world series)

 

jim hendry for building the 2008 cubs (97 wins, swept in the first round)

 

?

 

Which season would you rather take as a fan?

 

That's not his point

[dew1679666265]

It is about winning the World Series, and if you don't believe that, then I'm not sure why you'd be a baseball fan.

 

for the team it's about winning the world series. ultimately, a gm can't control what his team does in the playoffs. all he does is build a team and then hope they perform when it matters.

 

if the 2008 cubs had shown up for the playoffs and won the world series, would that have meant jim hendry had built a better team? no, it still would have been the same team he built.

 

let me ask you something. who deserves more credit-

 

walt jocketty for building the 2006 cards (won 83 games, but also the world series)

 

jim hendry for building the 2008 cubs (97 wins, swept in the first round)

 

?

 

Which season would you rather take as a fan?

 

That's not his point

 

Exactly. As a fan I'd take the World Series title any day, but the 2008 Cubs were simply a better constructed team that didn't show up in the playoffs.

[davearm2]

Judging a GM by WS trophies is about as valid as judging a starting pitcher by wins.

 

Commonly the starting pitcher is out of the game after the 6th inning. What happens in the three innings after that is out of his hands.

 

For all intents and purposes, a GM's roster-building work ends on July 31st. What happens in the three months after that is out of his hands.

 

As Dexter explained, the playoffs are a crapshoot, so all you can ask of a GM is to get the team there and give them a chance to get hot and catch the breaks needed to win it all. Hendry isn't lighting the world on fire, but three postseason appearances in seven seasons is nothing to apologize for either.

[UK1679666180]

Hendry isn't lighting the world on fire, but three postseason appearances in seven seasons is nothing to apologize for either.

 

Given the resources and time he has been allocated, the Cubs should've done more in his tenure. Regardless if it's fair or not, had the Cubs won in '08 that none of this would likely be a discussion.

 

The ultimate question is whether or not you think he is the best avail. candidate for that spot and if it is worth to find out if there is someone more likely to do more with this team than hendry would likely do. Of course if someone did come into this, they would have to deal with these awful contracts.

 

Personally, I would be willing for the Cubs to fire Hendry/FO and go after someone new. Unfort. given the fact they have very limited baseball knowledge above Hendry, it would possibly lead to a worse hire. But anytime there is a candidate like Logan White out there, I would be supportive of bringing someone like that to Chicago.

[17 Seconds]

It is about winning the World Series, and if you don't believe that, then I'm not sure why you'd be a baseball fan.

 

for the team it's about winning the world series. ultimately, a gm can't control what his team does in the playoffs. all he does is build a team and then hope they perform when it matters.

 

if the 2008 cubs had shown up for the playoffs and won the world series, would that have meant jim hendry had built a better team? no, it still would have been the same team he built.

 

let me ask you something. who deserves more credit-

 

walt jocketty for building the 2006 cards (won 83 games, but also the world series)

 

jim hendry for building the 2008 cubs (97 wins, swept in the first round)

 

?

 

Which season would you rather take as a fan?

 

that has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation

[17 Seconds]

Judging a GM by WS trophies is about as valid as judging a starting pitcher by wins.

 

i almost used that exact phrase

[A New Era]

Judging a GM by WS trophies is about as valid as judging a starting pitcher by wins.

 

i almost used that exact phrase

 

Good now you two can shake hands and make up and talk some baseball. WOOO!

[Backtobanks]

Judging a GM by WS trophies is about as valid as judging a starting pitcher by wins.

 

Commonly the starting pitcher is out of the game after the 6th inning. What happens in the three innings after that is out of his hands.

 

For all intents and purposes, a GM's roster-building work ends on July 31st. What happens in the three months after that is out of his hands.

 

As Dexter explained, the playoffs are a crapshoot, so all you can ask of a GM is to get the team there and give them a chance to get hot and catch the breaks needed to win it all. Hendry isn't lighting the world on fire, but three postseason appearances in seven seasons is nothing to apologize for either.

 

Basically, the GM's job is to put together the best team "on paper". Not only does he have three postseason appearances, but a few seasons when he had the "best" team on paper. Posters get upset about using the "injury excuse" when discussing Hendry, but there are times like 2009 when the number of injuries were extraordinary and not just "to be expected".

[Rob]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless.

 

What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]).

 

And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last.

[Backtobanks]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless.

 

What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]).

 

And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last.

 

Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top.

[Guest]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless.

 

What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]).

 

And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last.

 

Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top.

Small payroll teams that win an average or above number of games games ARE more efficient, though, so what is your point?

 

In a system such as baseball free agency, each additional dollar you spend buys you a smaller incremental improvement. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest driver is the non-linear pay increases received at the top of the talent pyramid. If you have the worst third baseman in MLB history on your roster, he will make the minimum salary. If you improve your third baseman up to standard replacement level...you pay $0 incremental money because that guy will still make the minimum salary. You can most likely find some cheap guy to man the position at somewhere around halfway between replacement and average for very little above minimum salary. But...if you want to find a guy who will reliably give you league average performance, you're going to start to pay several million a year. And it starts to go up radically from there. Aramis is going to cost you a lot of money. If you want ARod-level performance...you have to pay ARod type money.

 

There's an optimal point in there somewhere to get marginal performance per marginal dollar invested, which probably falls just below league average salary. Which is why the only way to beat the system and win championships as a small market team is to grow your own players from within and pay non-free agent wages.

[Little Slide Rooter]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless.

 

What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]).

 

And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last.

 

Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top.

Small payroll teams that win an average or above number of games games ARE more efficient, though, so what is your point?

 

In a system such as baseball free agency, each additional dollar you spend buys you a smaller incremental improvement. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest driver is the non-linear pay increases received at the top of the talent pyramid. If you have the worst third baseman in MLB history on your roster, he will make the minimum salary. If you improve your third baseman up to standard replacement level...you pay $0 incremental money because that guy will still make the minimum salary. You can most likely find some cheap guy to man the position at somewhere around halfway between replacement and average for very little above minimum salary. But...if you want to find a guy who will reliably give you league average performance, you're going to start to pay several million a year. And it starts to go up radically from there. Aramis is going to cost you a lot of money. If you want ARod-level performance...you have to pay ARod type money.

 

There's an optimal point in there somewhere to get marginal performance per marginal dollar invested, which probably falls just below league average salary. Which is why the only way to beat the system and win championships as a small market team is to grow your own players from within and pay non-free agent wages.

 

Another thing to take into account is where the players come from. With the Cubs and Mets, for instance the did it with a lot of trades and aquisitions. Sure, both hve had some solid home growns, but for the most part it has been through aquisitions. Same with the Yankees and Red Sox, only they had more home grown talent as well. Then, looking at the Phillies, they got very lucky with home grown talent in Rollins, Howard, Utley, and Hamels, as well as getting Werth and Victorino for very cheap. I know a GM has to lock these guys up, but it make the GMs job a lot easier when you have guys like that coming through your system. And then theres the Cardinals. Yeah, they have and have had some good players come through since the McGwire era ended, such as Edmonds, Rolen, Wainwright, Carpenter, Walker, etc, but if you take Albert Pujols out of any of those Cardinals teams, what do they look like? Do they even mke the playoffs in 2005, 2006, or 2009? Pujols was extreme luck. He was a 13th round pick who came to the how in 2001 and has owned the league ever since. Assuming he was never a Cardinals, what does every 2000's Cardinals team look like?

[davearm2]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless.

 

What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]).

 

And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last.

Switching from average to marginal $/win is going to have a trivial impact on the results. You're just subtracting a fixed amount of $$$ from each team's payroll ($10M), and a fixed amount from each team's win total (I used 40). So each team's numerator and denominator get smaller by the same amount. That will generate larger magnitudes, but the relative change will be negligible.

 

Anyway, here are the results done your way: Marginal $ per Marginal Win

1 New York Yankees $3.2M

2 Boston Red Sox $2.1M

3 New York Mets $2.6M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.8M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $2.0M

6 Chicago Cubs $2.1M

7 Seattle Mariners $2.3M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.8M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.7M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.6M

 

As you can see, the Cubs rank about in the middle of the 10 highest-spending clubs using either method.

[Guest]

Judging a GM by WS trophies is about as valid as judging a starting pitcher by wins.

 

Commonly the starting pitcher is out of the game after the 6th inning. What happens in the three innings after that is out of his hands.

 

For all intents and purposes, a GM's roster-building work ends on July 31st. What happens in the three months after that is out of his hands.

 

As Dexter explained, the playoffs are a crapshoot, so all you can ask of a GM is to get the team there and give them a chance to get hot and catch the breaks needed to win it all. Hendry isn't lighting the world on fire, but three postseason appearances in seven seasons is nothing to apologize for either.

 

I agree with everything you said in this post except for the third paragraph and the last sentence, so I have to believe you aren't that far off on judgment of a GM's value. You just apparently have a lower expectation than most.

 

Jim Hendry's work might be done on July 31st, but every other GM in baseball is still looking to improve their teams all year long. There is a waiver trade deadline that extends to August 31. There is non-stop evaluation of the talent that will be available to fill your offseason holes, as well as evaluating other team's players that could potentially become available in a trade. There is the constant need to find quality scouts and areas that need to be scouted. There are needs to fill vacant managerial and coaching postions with personnel that are better than what you have now.

 

It's a big job. A lot of what I just mentioned got ignored this offseason because Hendry was too busy attempting to fix mistakes from the previous year. He wasn't acting in the best interests in the team in any way, shape or form. He was undoing last year's catastrophe. HIS catastrophe. Whether you want to admit that Bradley needed to be dumped off of this team or not, 2 months of the offseason was dedicated to just that rather than looking at what will improve this team moving forward. I expect more from my GM. If he was coming off a 95 win season, I might be able to be more forgiving. If he had a big chunk of payroll coming off the books where he was the one looking at guys like Halladay or Holliday, I could probably write off the disaster that was Milton Bradley. But, that's not the case. He made bad decisions. Several of them. Too many of them. It's time to go.

 

As bad as we thought Kevin Towers was in San Diego, he was limited by a very restricted budget, yet he was able to perform at nearly the same level as Jim Hendry with 1/3 of the payroll. San Diego got rid of him because that wasn't good enough. They hired a Theo Epstein disciple. Whether that will work in San Diego is hard to say, because that's a completely different type of work environment than what Epstein has to work with.

 

The only other team in the NL Central that even comes remotely close to the Cubs in payroll is the Cardinals. Every other team is restricting their budgets even more during tough economic times. Hendry's budget has grown during that time. 3 playoff appearances in 7 years is not even half the time, and it's completely unacceptable given the resources he has to work with, the teams he is competing against and the team that was handed to him at the very beginning.

[Backtobanks]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless.

 

What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]).

 

And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last.

 

Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top.

Small payroll teams that win an average or above number of games games ARE more efficient, though, so what is your point?

 

In a system such as baseball free agency, each additional dollar you spend buys you a smaller incremental improvement. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest driver is the non-linear pay increases received at the top of the talent pyramid. If you have the worst third baseman in MLB history on your roster, he will make the minimum salary. If you improve your third baseman up to standard replacement level...you pay $0 incremental money because that guy will still make the minimum salary. You can most likely find some cheap guy to man the position at somewhere around halfway between replacement and average for very little above minimum salary. But...if you want to find a guy who will reliably give you league average performance, you're going to start to pay several million a year. And it starts to go up radically from there. Aramis is going to cost you a lot of money. If you want ARod-level performance...you have to pay ARod type money.

 

There's an optimal point in there somewhere to get marginal performance per marginal dollar invested, which probably falls just below league average salary. Which is why the only way to beat the system and win championships as a small market team is to grow your own players from within and pay non-free agent wages.

 

The discussion seemed to be that the Cubs overspend wildly for the number of wins they have produced especially against other large payroll teams. If someone is happy with a 65-win team that has a payroll of under $20 million because they're cost efficient, so be it. That's why I thought Davearm 2 had the right statistics. As I posted earlier, anyone can find statistics to prove or disprove just about anything.

[Guest]

FWIW, here are the 10 highest-spending clubs over the last 7 years, and how much they've spent per win.

 

1 New York Yankees $2.0M

2 Boston Red Sox $1.3M

3 New York Mets $1.5M

4 Los Angeles Angels $1.1M

5 Los Angeles Dodgers $1.2M

6 Chicago Cubs $1.2M

7 Seattle Mariners $1.2M

8 Atlanta Braves $1.1M

9 Philadelphia Phillies $1.0M

10 St. Louis Cardinals $1.0M

 

As you can see, the efficiency with which the Cubs have turned dollars into wins is right in line with the other big-payroll teams.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pretty useless.

 

What you would need to do is calculate marginal payroll (actual payroll minus league minimum times 25) over marginal wins (actual wins minus how many games a replacement level team would win [depending on the definition, usually between 30-50 games... probably on the higher side of that now that BP has adjusted their silly idea of replacement level fielding.]).

 

And for what it's worth, the last few studies I've seen done like that had the Cubs in last or next to last.

 

Without doing all the math, that formula would seem to put all the big payroll teams near the bottom and all of the low payroll teams toward the top.

Small payroll teams that win an average or above number of games games ARE more efficient, though, so what is your point?

 

In a system such as baseball free agency, each additional dollar you spend buys you a smaller incremental improvement. There are a lot of reasons why this is the case, but the biggest driver is the non-linear pay increases received at the top of the talent pyramid. If you have the worst third baseman in MLB history on your roster, he will make the minimum salary. If you improve your third baseman up to standard replacement level...you pay $0 incremental money because that guy will still make the minimum salary. You can most likely find some cheap guy to man the position at somewhere around halfway between replacement and average for very little above minimum salary. But...if you want to find a guy who will reliably give you league average performance, you're going to start to pay several million a year. And it starts to go up radically from there. Aramis is going to cost you a lot of money. If you want ARod-level performance...you have to pay ARod type money.

 

There's an optimal point in there somewhere to get marginal performance per marginal dollar invested, which probably falls just below league average salary. Which is why the only way to beat the system and win championships as a small market team is to grow your own players from within and pay non-free agent wages.

 

The discussion seemed to be that the Cubs overspend wildly for the number of wins they have produced especially against other large payroll teams. If someone is happy with a 65-win team that has a payroll of under $20 million because they're cost efficient, so be it. That's why I thought Davearm 2 had the right statistics. As I posted earlier, anyone can find statistics to prove or disprove just about anything.

 

No team is happy with a 65 win season. That's why a lot of GM's get replaced each year. Those teams that typically only win 65 games are teams that don't have the enjoyment of spending 100m on their payroll. Thus, they look for a GM who can develop from within, draft well, trade wisely, and spend thrifty. If after a season or two, the results are 65 wins, adios.

 

Those other teams can't be compared to the Cubs. Most of those teams have already replaced their front offices at least once. For what the Cubs have available in resources, they should win 90 games a year. Period. An 85 win season can be forgiven if he is consistently getting his teams into the playoffs. 3 times in 7 years is not consistently.

 

Does anyone have a breakdown of payroll size per year (just the Cubs) matched up with the wins for each season? That will be a real telling statistic. The Cubs have expanded payroll basically every year he's been here and they aren't any better today than they were in the first year that he took over. As a GM, I'd have to ask why I am paying almost double for the same production, especially when most of the other teams out there are reducing payrolls and staying somewhat productive. Even more disconcerting has to be watching teams like Florida and Tampa having measureable success in the playoffs with a miniscule portion of the salary Hendry has.