The Key to Dusty

[Tracer Bullet]

Is apparently money. (From Miles)

 

Speaking of Murton, Baker was asked if the right-handed hitter would see any action against right-handed pitching. Murton started Tuesday night against Astros lefty Andy Pettitte.

 

“It depends where we are,” Baker said. “What are you going to do with (Matt) Lawton? What are you going to do with Jeromy (Burnitz)? These guys make quite a bit of money, too. They’re here to play.

 

So the reason Murton doesn't play against righties is that he doesn't make enough money. Got it. Makes perfect sense now. :roll:

[CUBZ99]

Is apparently money. (From Miles)

 

Speaking of Murton, Baker was asked if the right-handed hitter would see any action against right-handed pitching. Murton started Tuesday night against Astros lefty Andy Pettitte.

 

“It depends where we are,” Baker said. “What are you going to do with (Matt) Lawton? What are you going to do with Jeromy (Burnitz)? These guys make quite a bit of money, too. They’re here to play.

 

So the reason Murton doesn't play against righties is that he doesn't make enough money. Got it. Makes perfect sense now. :roll:

 

I can't believe that Dusty is still playing Murton against Lefties. That is a huge step for him. With the playoffs on the line and after the Lawton trade Dusty could have easily created many excuses to bench Murton everyday and stay with Burnitz and Lawton.

[AI]

Is apparently money. (From Miles)

 

Speaking of Murton, Baker was asked if the right-handed hitter would see any action against right-handed pitching. Murton started Tuesday night against Astros lefty Andy Pettitte.

 

“It depends where we are,” Baker said. “What are you going to do with (Matt) Lawton? What are you going to do with Jeromy (Burnitz)? These guys make quite a bit of money, too. They’re here to play.

 

So the reason Murton doesn't play against righties is that he doesn't make enough money. Got it. Makes perfect sense now. :roll:

 

I can't believe that Dusty is still playing Murton against Lefties. That is a huge step for him. With the playoffs on the line and after the Lawton trade Dusty could have easily created many excuses to bench Murton everyday and stay with Burnitz and Lawton.

 

He also smacked Murton's throwing arm after complementing him. Way to build confidence in the kid. "Hey, you've been playing well dude, but your arm kinda sucks."

[JC]

Is apparently money. (From Miles)

 

Speaking of Murton, Baker was asked if the right-handed hitter would see any action against right-handed pitching. Murton started Tuesday night against Astros lefty Andy Pettitte.

 

“It depends where we are,” Baker said. “What are you going to do with (Matt) Lawton? What are you going to do with Jeromy (Burnitz)? These guys make quite a bit of money, too. They’re here to play.

 

So the reason Murton doesn't play against righties is that he doesn't make enough money. Got it. Makes perfect sense now. :roll:

 

I can't believe that Dusty is still playing Murton against Lefties. That is a huge step for him. With the playoffs on the line and after the Lawton trade Dusty could have easily created many excuses to bench Murton everyday and stay with Burnitz and Lawton.

 

He also smacked Murton's throwing arm after complementing him. Way to build confidence in the kid. "Hey, you've been playing well dude, but your arm kinda sucks."

 

Yeah, it seems like it is impossible for Dusty to give a glowing report of Murton.

[Tracer Bullet]

Exactly. Who knows what kind of player Murton will turn out to be, but I think his performance to date (esp given Burnitz's play over the last couple of months) warrants a good look. Meaning playing against whomever is on the mound, righty or lefty. Does Dusty really think Murton has a better chance of hitting Andy Pettitte than some middle reliever in Houston's pen?

 

On the other hand, as Dusty said, Burnitz and Lawton are here to play. Murton is apparently here for the sunflower seeds.

[frostwyrm]

07/05/2003 12:54 PM ET

 

Baker also is backing reliever Antonio Alfonseca, who is scuffling. Alfonseca has given up 11 runs in five innings over his last six games.

 

"What are you going to do with him if you don't stick with him?" Baker said. "You're not going to send him down if he's making $4 million. There's no choice but to stick with him."

 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/news/chc_news.jsp?ymd=20030705&content_id=409599&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp

[frostwyrm]

It depends where we are. He (Murton) has proven he’s real good against lefties. With the stroke he has … you analyze the young man’s stroke and figure out who it would be best for him to face.

 

Analyze his stroke? I'd love to hear what Dusty's analysis of Neifi's stroke told him.

[seanhopper]

I could never imagine hearing about money in any conversation with Bobby Cox in regards to his decision making process.

Dusty Baker is a complete joke and it makes no sense to sit a young player, who so happens to have the talent to play, because vets are making more than him.

[Tracer Bullet]

07/05/2003 12:54 PM ET

 

Baker also is backing reliever Antonio Alfonseca, who is scuffling. Alfonseca has given up 11 runs in five innings over his last six games.

 

"What are you going to do with him if you don't stick with him?" Baker said. "You're not going to send him down if he's making $4 million. There's no choice but to stick with him."

 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/news/chc_news.jsp?ymd=20030705&content_id=409599&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp

 

I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure this is what they call "sunk cost" (applies to Burny now, as well as Alfonseca in '03).

 

In other words, you have to pay these guys whether they play or not. So the fact that a guy is making big money should not factor into your decision of whether to play him going forward. If cost is fixed for the year, play the guys that will get you the most wins, not the guys that are getting paid the most.

[UMFan83]

Yup, I never understood why a player has to play because they are making a lot of money. Doesn't make any sense to me...

[frostwyrm]

What I don't understand is how an inexperienced player is ever supposed to take a starting job away from a veteran on a Dusty Baker team. A veteran starter is always going to have a multi-million dollar salary. When Baker says "we can't bench Lawton or Burnitz for a rookie because they make lots of money", you could insert the name of any veteran everyday player into that statement.

[Notorious]

07/05/2003 12:54 PM ET

 

Baker also is backing reliever Antonio Alfonseca, who is scuffling. Alfonseca has given up 11 runs in five innings over his last six games.

 

"What are you going to do with him if you don't stick with him?" Baker said. "You're not going to send him down if he's making $4 million. There's no choice but to stick with him."

 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/news/chc_news.jsp?ymd=20030705&content_id=409599&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp

 

Isn't Patterson making close to 4 million? He was sent down, where was Dusty arguing to keep him up?

[UBlink]

I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure this is what they call "sunk cost" (applies to Burny now, as well as Alfonseca in '03).

 

In other words, you have to pay these guys whether they play or not. So the fact that a guy is making big money should not factor into your decision of whether to play him going forward. If cost is fixed for the year, play the guys that will get you the most wins, not the guys that are getting paid the most.

 

You underestimate yourself - that sounds like an economist to me.

[Satch80]

Somewhere I read an article recently that addressed this subject, I think by Steve Phillips the former GM of the Mets.

 

The upper office frowns on lots of uninjured $$$ sitting on the bench because it makes the signings look bad. OK if replacing injured $$$ players.

Guess there's corporate politics in baseball like everywhere else.

[frostwyrm]

Somewhere I read an article recently that addressed this subject, I think by Steve Phillips the former GM of the Mets.

 

The upper office frowns on lots of uninjured $$$ sitting on the bench because it makes the signings look bad. OK if replacing injured $$$ players.

Guess there's corporate politics in baseball like everywhere else.

 

It's embarassing if a rookie outplays an expensive vet. The solution: don't give the rookie the chance to do it. Unless of course you're the Braves, then the best player gets the job regardless of salary/experience.

[Marco4]

It's embarassing if a rookie outplays an expensive vet. The solution: don't give the rookie the chance to do it. Unless of course you're the Braves, then the best player gets the job regardless of salary/experience.

Yeah, but since when were the Braves ever successful?

 

:lol:

 

By the way, that sig is scaring the jiggins out of me.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

07/05/2003 12:54 PM ET

 

Baker also is backing reliever Antonio Alfonseca, who is scuffling. Alfonseca has given up 11 runs in five innings over his last six games.

 

"What are you going to do with him if you don't stick with him?" Baker said. "You're not going to send him down if he's making $4 million. There's no choice but to stick with him."

 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/chc/news/chc_news.jsp?ymd=20030705&content_id=409599&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp

 

Isn't Patterson making close to 4 million? He was sent down, where was Dusty arguing to keep him up?

 

2.8 million for Patterson this year, compared to the 4.5 million of Burnitz and 7.75 of Lawton.

[Tracer Bullet]

Somewhere I read an article recently that addressed this subject, I think by Steve Phillips the former GM of the Mets.

 

The upper office frowns on lots of uninjured $$$ sitting on the bench because it makes the signings look bad. OK if replacing injured $$$ players.

Guess there's corporate politics in baseball like everywhere else.

 

I can understand that. It's tough to admit to mistakes. On the other hand, if you make a mistake by signing a vet to a big deal, that's done. The fans know the vet stinks regardless of whether they're playing or not (and seeing them on the field stinking every day just reminds the fans of your mistake). So you can bench the vet and play the better player, regardless of money. Or you can compound the mistake by playing the vet and losing more games.

 

Seems odd that a manager would play the vet rather than the talented player. I say that b/c if the team doesn't do well, even if the manager plays the vet, the manager gets fired. If the team does well, but the owner sees that the GM is throwing money at bad old players, the GM should get fired. So if I'm the manager, I play my best players in hopes of winning as many games as possible and keeping my job. Can the GM really fire a manager who is winning a lot of games for not playing overpaid crappy veterans? I'm thinking that'd be a pretty tough task.