AN writer admits: MoneyBall doesn't work if you're poor.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

It's probably very obvious by now, but I thought this was a solid read plus I can insert my propaganda.

 

You could honestly make the case -- especially during the last 40 years -- that whether it be the length of their hair or the syringes in their travel cases or their complete Futureworld transformation of the statistical side of MLB, this franchise has had perhaps more real-world impact on the trajectory of the sport than even the Yankees have had in that same time frame. Yeah, ESPN, I said it. It's f*cking true too, despite the sycophantic and obsequious efforts of propaganda channels like yours to make the conversation all about the rich fools with all the jewels.

 

 

But we have to face facts: it's like anything else in life in that to succeed you have to be able to afford rent and food. What we have seen since the air left the sails in 2007 (never yet to return) shows us that spare parts and number charts don't a perennial contender make. You have to have the $$ to combine the best of the sabermetrical ability to uncover the hidden gems with the good old fashioned money-muscle to pay for the necessary Big Pieces any team needs to really compete on a consistent, no less elite, basis... especially since the Steroid Era the A's helped usher in ended and there are no more swollen-headed sluggers laying around to be claimed off waivers like some sort of Dial-a-Mutant-Masher service

A persuasive, if uncomfortable, argument can be made that in letting the sabercat out of the bag of tricks via the worldwide impact of the book -- now, years later, a Major Motion Picture -- the Athletics shot themselves in the foot and gave a great deal of ammunition to the wealthier clubs like the Red Sox to take the best of the Moneyball methods and marry them to their economically superior resources, thus producing an even wider gap between the haves and the have-nots and relegating our team to an even-more-irrelevant status than that which precipitated BB's impetus to begin to look under all the rocks for new ways of keeping up in the first place.

 

 

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2011/9/19/2435642/for-the-love-of-moneyball-the-failure-of-sabermetrics-in-the-absence

 

Billy Beane 2012.

 

It shouldn't even be a contest really. I can't name a GM who deserves the job more, and this isn't just any GM job.

[Formerly Snayke]

There are other GMs that are just as ahead of the curve as Beane.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

There are other GMs that are just as ahead of the curve as Beane.

 

The point is that the heard of the curve is loaded with money, and that sabermetrics works best when combined with money.

 

Most of the guys people put on Beane's level (Friedman instantly comes to mind) don't have half his experience or the name or some other quality anyway. Like I said, there's not anyone specific I can name off the top of my head who has earned a job like the Cubs' job more.

[KingCubsFan]

There are other GMs that are just as ahead of the curve as Beane.

 

The point is that the heard of the curve is loaded with money, and that sabermetrics works best when combined with money.

 

Most of the guys people put on Beane's level (Friedman instantly comes to mind) don't have half his experience or the name or some other quality anyway. Like I said, there's not anyone specific I can name off the top of my head who has earned a job like the Cubs' job more.

Friedman's arguably been more successful given his division and budget. Beane has certainly had his moments, but he's never been able to replicate the success he had with Zito, Mulder and Hudson, and he's been in a much worse division. Beane would be a great choice, but he shouldn't get in the way of Ricketts throwing all the money it takes at Friedman first.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Friedman's arguably been more successful given his division and budget. Beane has certainly had his moments, but he's never been able to replicate the success he had with Zito, Mulder and Hudson, and he's been in a much worse division. Beane would be a great choice, but he shouldn't get in the way of Ricketts throwing all the money it takes at Friedman first.

 

Well first of the whole article is about how not replicating that success was a foregone conclusion once richer franchises started adapting, which is a very valid point.

 

Why Beane deserves the Cubs job way more than Freidman:

 

1 - Friedman is more of a co-GM with Hunsicker in the first place.

 

2 - He didn't even win the WS, so the "more successful" argument isn't completely there. The Rays haven't fielded a team nearly as good as the '01 or '02 A's for instance.

 

3 - Key players drafted pre-Friedman as GM: Crawford, Niemann, Young (who became Garza), Upton, Davis. Don't forget that the Kazmir trade also happened before Friedman, and that gave them their pre-Price ace.

 

4 - Key players drafted with top 10 picks - Price (a talent universally considered elite, #1 overall), Longoria (another obvious elite talent, should have gone #1 overall went 3 instead), Niemann (was also considered a high end talent, #4 overall), BJ Upton (#2 overall), Young (became Garza, #1 overall)

 

There really is no denying that while Freidman was working with budget constraints, he was also working with a franchise who tanked so hard for a decade that they got to stock themselves with elite young talent at some very key positions ( got to draft an ace, CF, 3B, more pitching). Basically, despite the Rays' reputation before 2008 he wasn't exactly dealt a hand you couldn't work with. This isn't even discussing that the A's in the early 2000's were battling a Mariners franchise that was amongst the best and most successful in baseball itself and a LA franchise who'd also rise quickly in the early 2000's (as well as the Rangers' offenses from then). Plus, the Rays have been a strong franchise for what...4 years now? That's how long it's been since Beane fielded a truly competitive team and roughly half the time he sustained strong A's teams. Is what Friedman has done in Tampa so special that it overrides a GM who literally helped shape the way people within and without the game look at the sport in the 21st century? I don't think so when circumstance and context is looked at (specifically lucking out in being able to land both Price AND Longoria, which are franchise changing type picks).

 

Beane could and most definitely should get in the way of Ricketts throwing his money at Friedman. A guy like Freidman would never have become a GM in the first place without what Beane was doing over there in Oakland. I give Friedman credit in that the Rays are doing very well for themselves and should for at least a few more years, and I have no doubt he plays a huge part in that. That said, I still see plenty of reason to wonder if HE can replicate HIS success outside of Tampa.

 

Long post is long.

[Guest]

Beane or Freidman, it's a no lose scenario for the Cubs.

 

I'd dance a jig if they got either one.

 

I might go into a deep depression if they get Colletti or Byrnes or Jokertty.

[KingCubsFan]

Well first of the whole article is about how not replicating that success was a foregone conclusion once richer franchises started adapting, which is a very valid point.

Sure, it's valid, but Friedman has shown that teams can still have a success on a limited budget even when big money rivals have adapted their techniques, which Beane hasn't been able to do.

 

Why Beane deserves the Cubs job way more than Freidman:

 

1 - Friedman is more of a co-GM with Hunsicker in the first place.

I don't know where you got this from. Link? And David Forst has had a similar role with Beane.

2 - He didn't even win the WS, so the "more successful" argument isn't completely there. The Rays haven't fielded a team nearly as good as the '01 or '02 A's for instance.

He didn't win it, but they got there. The A's never made it.

3 - Key players drafted pre-Friedman as GM: Crawford, Niemann, Young (who became Garza), Upton, Davis. Don't forget that the Kazmir trade also happened before Friedman, and that gave them their pre-Price ace.

Kind of like Zito, Hudson, Mulder and Giambi? Of course Friedman didn't do it by himself, but it's interesting you're trying to take away the fact that he traded one guy (Young) for a much better player (Garza).

4 - Key players drafted with top 10 picks - Price (a talent universally considered elite, #1 overall), Longoria (another obvious elite talent, should have gone #1 overall went 3 instead), Niemann (was also considered a high end talent, #4 overall), BJ Upton (#2 overall), Young (became Garza, #1 overall)

Yes, all of these players were great talents, but what about the fact that he also signed Longoria to a ridiculous contract to lock him in, and, as I mentioned above, traded Young before he lost all his value? You make it seem like it's automatic when you have a top 10 pick, despite the fact you appear to root for a team that has draft Luis Montanez, Ryan Harvey and Josh Vitters in the top 5.

 

There really is no denying that while Freidman was working with budget constraints, he was also working with a franchise who tanked so hard for a decade that they got to stock themselves with elite young talent at some very key positions ( got to draft an ace, CF, 3B, more pitching). Basically, despite the Rays' reputation before 2008 he wasn't exactly dealt a hand you couldn't work with. This isn't even discussing that the A's in the early 2000's were battling a Mariners franchise that was amongst the best and most successful in baseball itself and a LA franchise who'd also rise quickly in the early 2000's (as well as the Rangers' offenses from then). Plus, the Rays have been a strong franchise for what...4 years now? That's how long it's been since Beane fielded a truly competitive team and roughly half the time he sustained strong A's teams. Is what Friedman has done in Tampa so special that it overrides a GM who literally helped shape the way people within and without the game look at the sport in the 21st century? I don't think so when circumstance and context is looked at (specifically lucking out in being able to land both Price AND Longoria, which are franchise changing type picks).

Beane could and most definitely should get in the way of Ricketts throwing his money at Friedman. A guy like Freidman would never have become a GM in the first place without what Beane was doing over there in Oakland. I give Friedman credit in that the Rays are doing very well for themselves and should for at least a few more years, and I have no doubt he plays a huge part in that. That said, I still see plenty of reason to wonder if HE can replicate HIS success outside of Tampa.

 

Competing with the Mariners and Angels isn't quite competing with the Red Sox and Yankees. You seem to hold on to the fact that because Beane was the first GM to use some of these techniques, he must be the best. Which isn't true. What Friedman has done is, to me, much more impressive than Beane, and he has done it more recently.

[CubColtPacer]

I think there could be more of a case made for Beane over Friedman if they were just in different parts of the life cycle. If Beane had been rebuilding the farm system over the last few years and Tampa Bay was in the period where they have major league success and a declining farm system, then it could be argued that they are just both small market franchises at different points. But TB has a much better major league team and a much better farm system. TB has managed to have a very good major league team and still have a ton of extra draft picks. Beane however has traded away some great major league talent while it was still cheap.

 

And who knows what type of players Beane actually values? He valued OBP when it was undervalued. Now he values speed and defense because it is undervalued. What types of players will he try to acquire when he has money?

[imb]

RYAN HARVEY. god dammit.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I don't know where you got this from. Link? And David Forst has had a similar role with Beane.

 

This is one of the most well known facts about the Rays. Forst isn't the equivalent of Hunsicker, who helped build some pretty good Astro's teams too.

 

Anyway:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/tb/team/exe_bios/hunsicker_gerry.html

 

Named senior vice president, baseball operations for the Rays in November 2005, Gerry Hunsicker touches all areas of baseball operations. He has been particularly instrumental in helping to establish the Rays international program. Over the past three years, the Rays have created a significant presence in Venezuela, Dominican Republic and Colombia. In December 2008, the team and the city of Marília, Brazil, announced a partnership that includes construction of a training facility, the first baseball academy run by a major league organization in Brazil. In 2009, the Rays also expanded efforts in Asia and Europe.

 

Hunsicker's experience in major league baseball spans four decades. Prior to joining the Rays, Hunsicker served as an advisor for the Houston Astros during the 2005 season. Previously, he served as general manager of the Astros for nine seasons. He was instrumental in building the team that advanced to the franchise's first-ever World Series in 2005.

 

After being named general manager of the Astros in 1996, it took Hunsicker only two seasons to transform the franchise into a perennial winner. During this time he formed a nucleus that carried the team to four National League Central Division championships in five seasons. In addition to the four division titles, the club finished second in four of his other five seasons and reached the playoffs as the National League Wild Card entry in 2004.

 

In 1998, Hunsicker was named Sporting News Executive of the Year after assembling an Astros team that won a franchise-best 102 games during the season.

 

He didn't win it, but they got there. The A's never made it.

 

Yes, the Rays are lucky enough to have made the WS. Personally, I think the 100+ win seasons the A's pulled off are just as, if not more, impressive. Not only that, but I don't think a single one of those Rays teams touches the best of the early 2000's A's teams.

 

Kind of like Zito, Hudson, Mulder and Giambi? Of course Friedman didn't do it by himself, but it's interesting you're trying to take away the fact that he traded one guy (Young) for a much better player (Garza).

 

Not trying to take it away, just pointing it out. I'd gladly point out that Beane had his mentors, but the Cubs can't hire Sandy Alderson. Alderson, as its known, left the A's to work for the MLB making the whole operation in Oakland Beane's. Guys like DePodesta, Forst, Ricciardi, and whoever I'm forgetting all got their start in the Beane FO under Beane, which kind of makes him a boss in the truest sense of the word.

 

Beane was the GM when Mulder ('98) and Zito ('99) were drafted. If it helps you, they were both drafted with top 10 picks.

 

Yes, all of these players were great talents, but what about the fact that he also signed Longoria to a ridiculous contract to lock him in, and, as I mentioned above, traded Young before he lost all his value? You make it seem like it's automatic when you have a top 10 pick, despite the fact you appear to root for a team that has draft Luis Montanez, Ryan Harvey and Josh Vitters in the top 5.

 

That contract is to be lauded, and I agree on the Young trade. Could he pull that contract off again? Proooooobably not.

 

Also, you're ignoring the context of these draft picks. Price and Longoria were ........reeaaaally [expletive] elite talents. Price was considered the top college pitcher since Prior, and he threw with the more valuable arm. Longoria was the consensus best hitter and player in his draft year, but for whatever reason fell to 3 anyway. Montanez OTOH was the #2 pick in a draft who's #1 pick didn't hit come into his own until he was 28 with his 3rd or 4th franchise, Harvey was your typical boom and bust HS OF, and Vitters...well people sleep on Vitters' talent.

 

Competing with the Mariners and Angels isn't quite competing with the Red Sox and Yankees. You seem to hold on to the fact that because Beane was the first GM to use some of these techniques, he must be the best. Which isn't true. What Friedman has done is, to me, much more impressive than Beane, and he has done it more recently.

 

 

Competing is competing in the end, and both the Mariners and Angels were or became high end MLB franchises during the early 2000's. We're not exactly talking dirty here either. The Angels won the 2003 WS against the Bonds Giants and have been a power since, while the 2001 Mariners still own the all time single season W-L record. The Mariners were fading out while the Angels were charging in. The Rays, as I've already pointed out, had their advantages in competing with the Yankees and Red Sox with literally a decade of top 10 picks to play with. They haven't done it as long as Beane's A's were able to do it...the '01-'02 A's won 100+ games both years and in '06 still put up the 5th best record in baseball for instance. They weren't breaking ground like Beane's A's did. Literally the ONLY thing the Rays have done more impressively than A's is make the WS, and there's no denying that that came with some good, old fashioned luck. Throw in that Friedman wasn't THE guy in Tampa (again where Hunsicker has left a very downplayed impact probably due to this being just another job for the veteran FO guy) and I don't see how it's even a contest between the two. To me, there's even a little bit of SNTS going on with Friedman.

 

If Friedman and Beane were to work in the same FO, Beane would be the boss plain and simple. It's not the perfect way of looking at it (which is why I use so many words before that), but it's enough of a difference for me to know who the Cubs should be going after first.

Edited September 20, 2011 by KingKongvs.Godzilla

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I think there could be more of a case made for Beane over Friedman if they were just in different parts of the life cycle. If Beane had been rebuilding the farm system over the last few years and Tampa Bay was in the period where they have major league success and a declining farm system, then it could be argued that they are just both small market franchises at different points. But TB has a much better major league team and a much better farm system. TB has managed to have a very good major league team and still have a ton of extra draft picks. Beane however has traded away some great major league talent while it was still cheap.

 

And who knows what type of players Beane actually values? He valued OBP when it was undervalued. Now he values speed and defense because it is undervalued. What types of players will he try to acquire when he has money?

 

Serious question? The answer is good players. That's kind of the point of money...There's many ways to skin a cat, there's many types of good players, but it costs money to pay for any of them. The best way to get around this is to tank for a decade, pile up high draft picks, and hit with 3-4 of them.

 

Your life cycle point offers the question...Should we buy high on Friedman or low on Beane? This is a GM who built some of baseball's best teams for over half a decade despite limited payroll, late draft picks, and rich teams absorbing his ideas we're talking about. Friedman's teams are working on 4 years of success, one of which they didn't make the playoffs (and it could be 2 if they don't make it this year).

 

RYAN HARVEY. god dammit.

 

That was what...7 years ago? Life moved on. I'm sure Bubba Starling had a contingent of Cubs fans who wanted him, and Harvey was basically the Starling of his draft year.

[KingCubsFan]

A link to his official MLB bio doesn't do much. I'm well aware of who Gerry Hunsicker is, but that doesn't mean Friedman is letting him call the shots. I don't think he's mentioned once in Jonah Keri's book about the Rays, and he appears to focus more on international development. If he wants to replace Oneri Fleita, fine by me.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with Beane, and it would be great to get him, but Friedman is clearly the better candidate. Beane, while known as being innovative, has been unable to replicate his success since teams started valuing OBP. He turned his focus to defense, and his teams have been bad. Friedman also looked to defense, and his team went to the World Series. Sure, Beane did it first, but Friedman did it better. Saying that Beane would be the "boss" if he were in the same front office as Friedman really doesn't matter, because (a) it would never happen and (b) that speaks more to reputation than actual ability, which baseball is notorious for.

 

More concerning, however, are the reports that Beane's focus has been away from baseball for a few years, and David Forst does most of the heavy lifting. Do you really prefer a guy who isn't 100% committed to building a championship team?

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

A link to his official MLB bio doesn't do much. I'm well aware of who Gerry Hunsicker is, but that doesn't mean Friedman is letting him call the shots. I don't think he's mentioned once in Jonah Keri's book about the Rays, and he appears to focus more on international development. If he wants to replace Oneri Fleita, fine by me.

 

Technically as Hunsicker is the Senior VP of Baseball Operations, Friedman couldn't do that anyway. As far as not being in The Extra 2%, lets just call that another reason why Hunsicker's impact with the Rays is understated. The idea that he's the equivalent of Fleita is off for the simple reason is that Hunsicker is a former GM who built a WS team/successful 5+ year run for a franchise. I posted the bio to give you a scope of Hunsicker's work, which extends far beyond the moves he's helping the Rays make in Brazil and elsewhere. The bio even opens saying that he has his hands in everything over there.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with Beane, and it would be great to get him, but Friedman is clearly the better candidate. Beane, while known as being innovative, has been unable to replicate his success since teams started valuing OBP. He turned his focus to defense, and his teams have been bad. Friedman also looked to defense, and his team went to the World Series. Sure, Beane did it first, but Friedman did it better. Saying that Beane would be the "boss" if he were in the same front office as Friedman really doesn't matter, because (a) it would never happen and (b) that speaks more to reputation than actual ability, which baseball is notorious for.

 

Again, I completely and totally disagree.

 

Beane, while being innovative, had his innovations taken over by those who could back his innovations (which isn't OBP, it's the very roots of how FOs think and operate) with money. He turned his focus to defense because that's what his team could afford.

 

Your logic here is all around faulty IMO. Friedman is CURRENTLY doing better because his team hit a period where the talent they were collecting from being a joke franchise is finally paying off. When that lulls we'll see how they recover, because it's not easy nor is it any lock that he's turned the Rays into some kind of machine. Teams caught up to Beane as money got poured into sabermetric analysis. Freidman is not immune to this, especially now that his franchise is moving away from being able to grab high end top of the first round talent.

 

Also just playing with your logic...Friedman's team has made the playoffs once since their WS run in '08, so he hasn't been able to replicate that success either. It's NOT easy to do what either one of these guys have done with their franchises, and Beane did it first, sustained it longer, and won more games. Again, literally the only thing separating these guys is Friedman's slightly more successful postseason track record...which is only to be considered as such because his team made it to the WS that one year. All that does, IMO, is completely underrate what the A's of the early and mid 2000's did....4 division titles, 6 (?) straight playoff appearances, the 20 game win streak, a couple years with 100+ wins, some of the best offenses in the age of offense, some of the best pitching in the age of offense...all because a WS APPEARANCE (not even victory) is missing from there.

 

And no, that speaks to ability and not reputation. If you read around Friedman gets a mediajob daily, so this isn't someone who is lacking in reputation. His reputation is about as big as a sub-40 GM can get...Brian Cashman won 4 WS' before he was 40 and he could never get the hype I see Friedman get in the media.

 

More concerning, however, are the reports that Beane's focus has been away from baseball for a few years, and David Forst does most of the heavy lifting. Do you really prefer a guy who isn't 100% committed to building a championship team?

 

I don't find those reports even slightly concerning. I barely even find them slightly true. The guy is a part owner and one of the longest acting GMs in baseball. I don't even know how it's possible to question his commitment to baseball. I know the soccer rumors are out there, but who actually believes the guy would take that leap at this point in his baseball career with an incomplete legacy?

 

See my concern with Friedman is that this job is bigger than him. Not in the typical GM things...I think he can handle a team competently enough provided the strong supporting cast any GM/coach/star player needs...but the raw scope of just how prestigious the Cubs job actually will be to the guy who lands it needs a boss...someone who's name and influence is firmly instilled in the sport...someone who's led the building of an infrastructure and went through both the good and bad times with it. Friedman is actually my third choice (at best) because of how big I see this job title being. #1 is Beane, Cashman/Epstein share #2 with a leaning towards Cashman...then Friedman, and finally everyone else.

[MWV]

Friedman is CURRENTLY doing better because his team hit a period where the talent they were collecting from being a joke franchise is finally paying off. When that lulls we'll see how they recover, because it's not easy nor is it any lock that he's turned the Rays into some kind of machine.

 

Rays record last year: 96-66, 1st place in ALE. The Rays made 12 picks in the top 100 of the 2011 draft, mostly due to allowing 7 free agents to walk, including Crawford. They are again in playoff contention in 2011.

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah come on, they're still 18 games over .500 playing in the best division in baseball.

[CP_414]

Friedman is CURRENTLY doing better because his team hit a period where the talent they were collecting from being a joke franchise is finally paying off. When that lulls we'll see how they recover, because it's not easy nor is it any lock that he's turned the Rays into some kind of machine.

 

Rays record last year: 96-66, 1st place in ALE. The Rays made 12 picks in the top 100 of the 2011 draft, mostly due to allowing 7 free agents to walk, including Crawford. They are again in playoff contention in 2011.

 

I love Friedman and would be thrilled if the Cubs hired him, but I can't imagine the Cubs ever allowing 7 free agents to walk including a superstar level player in his prime. He can do that in Tampa and reload the farm system, but in Chicago he would be resigning many of those players to big contracts. I also doubt he would have traded Matt Garza for prospects if he had the Cubs budget. Again, I think he would be a great choice, but we don't really know how Friedman (or Beane) would act with money.

 

There is a lot of talk in this thread about players drafted under Beane and Friedman. I know from reading Moneyball, Beane was pretty directly involved in the A's choices. Does Friedman play as large a role in the draft picks in Tampa or is it more of a situation like the Cubs have been where the scouting director makes the picks?

 

As a baseball fan who has been in countless "new stats" vs "old stats" debates over the last decade, I would love to see Billy Beane get a chance to build a team with a significant payroll. As a Cubs fan I'd be very happy with Theo, Beane, or Friedman. Any of them would be a home run hire.

[UK1679666180]

Does Friedman play as large a role in the draft picks in Tampa or is it more of a situation like the Cubs have been where the scouting director makes the picks?

 

Scouting director, crosscheckers, and area scouts.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Friedman is CURRENTLY doing better because his team hit a period where the talent they were collecting from being a joke franchise is finally paying off. When that lulls we'll see how they recover, because it's not easy nor is it any lock that he's turned the Rays into some kind of machine.

 

Rays record last year: 96-66, 1st place in ALE. The Rays made 12 picks in the top 100 of the 2011 draft, mostly due to allowing 7 free agents to walk, including Crawford. They are again in playoff contention in 2011.

 

Which is commendable and why he's right where he should be right now.

 

Not arguing that Friedman is not currently succeeding. OTOH, This job isn't going to be about who can pile up comp picks.

 

Not having money will catch up to the Rays and Friedman one day...like say when it's time to pay Price/Longoria. I'd like to see that phase for Friedman, because I dont buy a career that's almost totally sunshine and lollipops. It should take a whole lot more than two playoff appearances to get treated with the kind of reverence young Mr. Friedman gets treated with. The guys still a baby in the GM game...all the way to the point that they still have an old boss (Hunsicker) to help him out.

[MWV]

As a Cubs fan I'd be very happy with Theo, Beane, or Friedman. Any of them would be a home run hire.

Completely agree with this and most of the rest of your statement.

 

My point was merely I think the Rays will be a tough team for a while longer, because Friedman knows where and how to spend his resources. He managed to follow a great season with another very competitive campaign while also netting a nice draft haul.

[UK1679666180]

Friedman is CURRENTLY doing better because his team hit a period where the talent they were collecting from being a joke franchise is finally paying off. When that lulls we'll see how they recover, because it's not easy nor is it any lock that he's turned the Rays into some kind of machine.

 

Rays record last year: 96-66, 1st place in ALE. The Rays made 12 picks in the top 100 of the 2011 draft, mostly due to allowing 7 free agents to walk, including Crawford. They are again in playoff contention in 2011.

 

Which is commendable and why he's right where he should be right now.

 

Not arguing that Friedman is not currently succeeding. OTOH, This job isn't going to be about who can pile up comp picks.

 

Not having money will catch up to the Rays and Friedman one day...like say when it's time to pay Price/Longoria. I'd like to see that phase for Friedman, because I dont buy a career that's almost totally sunshine and lollipops. It should take a whole lot more than two playoff appearances to get treated with the kind of reverence young Mr. Friedman gets treated with. The guys still a baby in the GM game...all the way to the point that they still have an old boss (Hunsicker) to help him out.

 

Friedman is extremely intelligent and knows how to run the show, one of the strongest attributes of leadership is delegation of duties. He lest his scouts scout and player development develop. He trusts his staff and sets the foundation as far as not rushing guys and lets everyone do their job.

[KingCubsFan]

Friedman is CURRENTLY doing better because his team hit a period where the talent they were collecting from being a joke franchise is finally paying off. When that lulls we'll see how they recover, because it's not easy nor is it any lock that he's turned the Rays into some kind of machine.

 

Rays record last year: 96-66, 1st place in ALE. The Rays made 12 picks in the top 100 of the 2011 draft, mostly due to allowing 7 free agents to walk, including Crawford. They are again in playoff contention in 2011.

 

Which is commendable and why he's right where he should be right now.

 

Not arguing that Friedman is not currently succeeding. OTOH, This job isn't going to be about who can pile up comp picks.

 

Not having money will catch up to the Rays and Friedman one day...like say when it's time to pay Price/Longoria. I'd like to see that phase for Friedman, because I dont buy a career that's almost totally sunshine and lollipops. It should take a whole lot more than two playoff appearances to get treated with the kind of reverence young Mr. Friedman gets treated with. The guys still a baby in the GM game...all the way to the point that they still have an old boss (Hunsicker) to help him out.

It caught up to them this year when they lost their second best player, first baseman, shortstop, closer, top 3 starter, and two of their top setup men. And yet here they are, in contention. They could lose Price tomorrow and replace him with Matt Moore and the assets they receive in a Price trade/compensation picks. Given their budget, they'll certainly have down years, but Friedman has already shown the ability to plan ahead and prepare for those periods.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Friedman is extremely intelligent and knows how to run the show, one of the strongest attributes of leadership is delegation of duties. He lest his scouts scout and player development develop. He trusts his staff and sets the foundation as far as not rushing guys and lets everyone do their job.

 

1. No one is denying that he's extremely intelligent.

 

2. Doesn't Beane do the whole delegate and lead thing? Hell, we've seen Beane guys go on and become GMs for other teams. Isn't that one of the strongest attributes of leadership when everyone is looking to copy and imitate your success with your own underlings?

 

3. Everyone lets their scouts scout and players develop. I'm not sure what's so special about that. Beane laid a foundation too, and it's one that almost very literally everyone in baseball started copying.

 

It caught up to them this year when they lost their second best player, first baseman, shortstop, closer, top 3 starter, and two of their top setup men. And yet here they are, in contention. They could lose Price tomorrow and replace him with Matt Moore and the assets they receive in a Price trade/compensation picks. Given their budget, they'll certainly have down years, but Friedman has already shown the ability to plan ahead and prepare for those periods.

 

1. What they're doing has been done. The 2002 A's lost the 2nd best hitter in baseball and the best offensive player in the AL and featured almost a completely different bullpen from the 2001 A's. They won 100+ games, the division, 20 games in a row, and went to the playoffs anyway.

 

2. As much as I'd like to believe that Moore will slide right in and be a David Price (after all the arm is ridiculous), that's a little excessive. Price is a bonafied ML ace who can give you 200+ innings of high end stuff. That said, overall I agree with your point that they are prepared right now to recover on losses (though not the comp picks part, as that doesn't offer any immediate payoff without special circumstances). The Beane A's were viewed very much in the same light (remember Harden, Blanton, Meyer were the next post-Trio wave?) in their time. Friedman is not the first GM to plan ahead and prepare, and again right now we're seeing them at their best rather than their worst like Beane's current teams. What will Friedman do when baseball adjusts, as it happened to Beane?

 

I feel that the Cubs be buying high on a more unproven/untested talent by making Friedman the #1 choice. He's done an exxxxxxxxxxceeeeeeeeelllent job with the Rays and I'm not here to take that away from him. OTOH I do feel that his ability to walk right into a new, much bigger franchise and imitate that success is totally in question. The Rays made life very easy for Friedman, and there's no chance that the Cubs job will come with those kind of benefits (multiple #1 overall picks, top 5 picks, and top 10 picks, a low key atmosphere in a very small market). Give me the guy who's been around for well over a decade, only got beaten by his own techniques being used by those with more resources to use them, and owns a chip on his shoulder because of that (and that ridiculous "MoneyBall doesn't work in the playoffs" claim that used to be thrown around by your media meathead types). It just makes sense to me to not go after whats the new hot thing when it's just a junior version of someone still very much around, available, and capable.

[UK1679666180]

Friedman is extremely intelligent and knows how to run the show, one of the strongest attributes of leadership is delegation of duties. He lest his scouts scout and player development develop. He trusts his staff and sets the foundation as far as not rushing guys and lets everyone do their job.

 

1. No one is denying that he's extremely intelligent.

 

2. Doesn't Beane do the whole delegate and lead thing? Hell, we've seen Beane guys go on and become GMs for other teams. Isn't that one of the strongest attributes of leadership when everyone is looking to copy and imitate your success with your own underlings?

 

3. Everyone lets their scouts scout and players develop. I'm not sure what's so special about that. Beane laid a foundation too, and it's one that almost very literally everyone in baseball started copying.

 

 

 

You're knocking Friedman for having Hunsicker as part of his staff as if, he wouldn't be as successful without him.

 

Beane delegates, but he/Kuboda also uses stats too much over the scout's opinion in relation to draft picks. Their hands have been in that cookie jar too much. It's the primary flaw when using BPA (within budgetary constraints) and statistical analysis. It's great to look at hitter's stats on Friday nights, but there's a line it crosses as far as importance.

 

Their farms have not been that good. Whether that is scouting or development, I'm not too familiar with but they haven't done as well building from within recently.

[javy knows my name]

Friedman is extremely intelligent and knows how to run the show, one of the strongest attributes of leadership is delegation of duties. He lest his scouts scout and player development develop. He trusts his staff and sets the foundation as far as not rushing guys and lets everyone do their job.

 

1. No one is denying that he's extremely intelligent.

 

2. Doesn't Beane do the whole delegate and lead thing? Hell, we've seen Beane guys go on and become GMs for other teams. Isn't that one of the strongest attributes of leadership when everyone is looking to copy and imitate your success with your own underlings?

 

3. Everyone lets their scouts scout and players develop. I'm not sure what's so special about that. Beane laid a foundation too, and it's one that almost very literally everyone in baseball started copying.

 

 

 

You're knocking Friedman for having Hunsicker as part of his staff as if, he wouldn't be as successful without him.

 

Beane delegates, but he/Kuboda also uses stats too much over the scout's opinion in relation to draft picks. Their hands have been in that cookie jar too much. It's the primary flaw when using BPA (within budgetary constraints) and statistical analysis. It's great to look at hitter's stats on Friday nights, but there's a line it crosses as far as importance.

 

Their farms have not been that good. Whether that is scouting or development, I'm not too familiar with but they haven't done as well building from within recently.

 

It's a good thing a lot of us know your biases, but I still feel like some may take this somewhat seriously.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

You're knocking Friedman for having Hunsicker as part of his staff as if, he wouldn't be as successful without him.

 

Beane delegates, but he/Kuboda also uses stats too much over the scout's opinion in relation to draft picks. Their hands have been in that cookie jar too much. It's the primary flaw when using BPA (within budgetary constraints) and statistical analysis. It's great to look at hitter's stats on Friday nights, but there's a line it crosses as far as importance.

 

Their farms have not been that good. Whether that is scouting or development, I'm not too familiar with but they haven't done as well building from within recently.

 

1. I'm not knocking Friedman. He knew he needed help and a mentor, and he picked a good one. I'm giving credit where credit is due, because I don't see Tampa as a one man job.

 

2. I think you're about 5-6 years behind on the A's draft philosophy. They like projectable athletes just as much as anyone else, and they've adjusted their drafts over time. For instance, they went from that whole no HS pitchers in the draft to Mazzarro/Italiano/Lansford in '05.

 

3. Their farms were amongst the best in baseball for a long time, and even in it's bad years still produced/held strong pitching talent. Even then, they're often amongst the younger teams in the league, which might play a part. I'm not someone who believes a farm system will be praised year in and year out. There will be lulls. The Rays simply have the advantage of not being in one of those lull periods right now.