KingKongvs.Godzilla

Understatement. Loaded is another word.... Is there another way to build a reputation as someone who never became a GM? Who's to say he didn't have some say in who the organization added beyond draft picks? I mean you have to figure that a scouting director has more than one time of year (the draft) where his contributions might be needed...Or maybe he really just is a complete imbecile who kind of lucked into any success he might have had (which can be taken away at any moment anyway since there's no direct line to him and only him there).

+1 If we're going to go after a young 1B bat who might be pushed out by his organization I'm in the Logan Morrison camp. I wish the Mariners would push Justin Smoak out...

fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap*bitelowerlip*fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap Jeebus H. Chriast this guy is going to be a star.

I don't understand this point. He was hurt by the fact that the Cubs were a scout heavy organization who mocked stats and wouldn't question what Hughes said? That does make sense. If the Cubs were more balanced in terms of using statistical analysis, Hughes insights could have been put to better use when combined with said statistical analysis. Not that it would have made him smarter, but it would have been a proper use of his skills, as opposed to the blindly going with whatever he had to say approach. Some of the guys he liked and may have been his 1a to the guy the Cubs picked may have been a smarter choice and the Cubs may have realized that if they were using multiple information sources. It's like Mike Martz as a head coach. Not a good idea. But, he can be a very useful part of an organization if he has some limits put on his "creativity". Exactly. Balance should always be a goal. The Cubs were not a balanced organization in the 2000's, and it's a big part of why they are where they have been from '09-'11. They really lacked the whole statistical aspect...

Both he and Bane stated that they do just that. That was the whole point they made that the numbers didn't just magically show up in the 2000's, they just went mainstream. Rickey was pushing the numbers 60+ years ago. The Yankees have been running numbers since the late 70's or so. Bill James was publishing his work in the 80's. Teams and the people who worked for them couldn't be completely oblivious to this, even if the ideas just kind of sat on a hot plate for a while. I agree that baseball was a jock fraternity. That said, scouts as a whole are usually the guys walked all over even before the numbers game exploded. Now here they are as the lowly underlings to FO guys who now own high end degrees from big schools who in turn can thumb their noses at them. The nerds didn't need the jocks telling them what should be done either, especially when the numbers said otherwise. That tension was very strong in the early 2000's IMO (iunno if anyone knows or remembers Bill Shanks, but THAT was an extremist scout who went out of his way to not understand the number game and bash it blindly...he worked for the Braves, a highly respect franchise), and you can notice it not only in Hughes' tone but in McCracken's tone. It went both ways, and now we're seeing less of that bs and more respect between both sides. The humanity of the game isn't just going to die out like the dinosaurs...It'd have to be systematically exterminated, which I think was a legit fear that scouts held for a period (da computahs ah comin!). You say it yourself...you don't need a Ph.D to understand the numbers of baseball. Yet teams went out and hired execs from big time schools working on their Ph.Ds to look at the numbers...That would be intimidating to anyone in any field, and it most definitely would create a wtf moment of tension between the new and old. Crap those were some interesting days...

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.

Are you sure he didn't understand or is it that his job is to try to beat the odds? The fact is that most players scouted and analyzed will bust, and despite the risk HS pitchers present there are still a great deal of success stories. I think they pointed out that the whole Marlins '03 rotation thAt was so touted was all HS guys. Plus he spent more time knocking going after the idea that teams were ignoring HS players on the whole, which the A's were famous for for a minute (and subsequently backed off when everyone started biting on the college idea). Seriously his job required acknowledging that everrrrrryyyyy young player carries risk. Scouting and analysis is what helps mitigate that risk (as well as a strong development program)....Hughes HAPPENS to lean towards scouting. Honestly the guy probably got hurt most by the fact that te Cubs weren't a very balanced organization under Hendry and the Trib.

How do we objectively declare that Hughes was the one who had the success? Does this mean he has had no success? I feel like you can raise that question legitimately for anyone.

How would it be a near-certainty? Wilson will be the most heavily pursued SP in the offseason, with teams like the Yankees and Angels after him. Fielder will likely get interest from the Orioles, Rangers, Nationals, and possibly Mariners. The Marlins are also looming for both, especially since they have a new stadium. Those are all teams with the resources to match any offer the Cubs put out there. I'd say the odds of the Cubs missing both is a heck of a lot higher than slim. If the Cubs are operating under that assumption, they're playing with fire. Not if the CC opts out, which IMO would really help the Cubs out.

Wow I remember reading this when it came out. I'm literally amazed at how differently I'm reading this in 2011. I'm reading this and wondering what he said that was so ridiculous. The DIPS/tobacco joke was a little ignorant, and he does sound a little old at times. Then there's a couple things heading in that direction like the communication thing (though at one point that was a legit knock with DePodesta in LA and JP in Toronto) and the plate discipline as a tool thing (though it'd be a very, very vague tool and it's already somewhat incorporated by a good scout in the hit tool), but overall I thought he made sense. Was it really as dumb or off as McCracken talking about the ability to hit for average as a non-physical tool because Wade Bogg wasn't a great athlete? Or how about equating bailing on a good breaking pitch with fear? W/e I'm glad those days are gone (and were short lived) and that teams realized that both sides can operate symbiotically. As Huckabay said, the double that a scout sees becomes one of the numbers in a stat line. As far as Hughes...probably best that he's gone given that he might be viewed as an extreme. Plus, he's older and we already have Wilken and Fleita locked up.

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. 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.

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.

Yes. From there it should be considered that more moves can be made.

That it was, but I can't say I know the bonuses of the other two. CR thanks for posting those chat clips.

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 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. 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.

Do you think there was progress?

But if Aramis leaves, what are the options? I agree, if Vitters gets any time in 2012 it will be in the 2nd half after dominating AA/AAA. Other options are: Platoons involving Jeff Baker/DJ LeMahieu and Ryan Flaherty/Blake DeWitt The FA market, in which Wilson Betemit, Casey Blake (38) and Mark DeRosa (37) are the 3B highlights beyond Ramirez. Trade: Mark Reynolds could be an option. Not many others I can think of. Theres Brandon Inge and Kevin Kouzmanoff who have spent the past several years proving that they arent very good at baseball. Others: David Wright Chase Headley Maybe try to catch lightning in a bottle with Ian Stewart Will Middlebrooks (Red Sox top prospect) Michael Young? Chone Figgins There's probably/maybe more.

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). 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.

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 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. 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. 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 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.

Well if it helps....there aren't many teams that can/will spend money like the Cubs potentially can, and the big boys (Yankees and Sox) will be distracted by their own guy (Sabathia) or just won't have room for a Wilson (Beckett/Lester/Buchholz/Lackey/Someone). That said I do think there are options that may or may not be there if Wilson fails...obviously they won't be as good and even availability is in question but: Ross Detweiler - Nationals are building a very good, young rotation and there's a chance they probably want this former top 10 pick in it. That said, if not he's an excellent buy young candidate. Jonathan Sanchez - Forgotten Giants lefty can pile up K's and has WS experience, but control and other flaws will make him available. Jon Broxton - Cubs aren't hurting for bullpen arms, but considering this is a still young former high end reliever I have to throw the name out there. Rick Porcello - Hopefully/maybe the Tigers lose patience. Andrew Miller - Might get the Red Sox's 5th spot next year. Upside and arm strength remain pluses and I like the new mechanics. He's less of a stiff than his Detroit or even college days. Tyler Matzek - Like Porcello, though still merely a prospect. With the acquisition of Pomeranz, a similar talent but college trained, I wonder if the Rockies might lose patience on their investment. He's significantly talented enough that I'm willing to throw him on this list despite the fact that he probably won't see the bigs in 2012. Franchise-mate Ian Stewart might make a decent buy low 3B option, though I'm in the keep Ramirez camp. Chad Billingsley - Not TOR enough or upside-y enough for my taste, but you'd know what you're getting with him for the most part. Tyler Chatwood - Diminutive RH pitches for a loaded LA staff, and there's the slightest chance he might be an odd man out type. I'm a big fan of the arm. Gavin Floyd - Personally, I think all non-Danks White Sox can go screw a goat, but he's a good pitcher. Like Billingsley, you know you're getting a solid arm who is what he is. Kyle Drabek - Another young upside arm who has an outside shot of his franchise losing patience. Chris Tillman - See Drabek/Matzek/Porcello. There's probably more, but these are some that come to mind quickly.

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.

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.

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

There's another guy in Cleveland I'm forgetting...I know they have some strong FO talent since Shapiro got there. I don't think the guy I'm thinking of is a legit candidate anyway since I think the Cubs want an experienced named (coughBeanecough).

I'd rather have Choo or Masterson too, but the point of the trade proposal was salary dumps on both sides. I think Choo is pretty much "untouchable" and Masterson is a good young pitcher making the minimum, so I don't see a way of involving Zambrano in a trade for either one of them. No Z. Just looking at their more worthwhile players. I'm not much of a Carmona fan and Sizemore probably hits FA.