What Ever Happened to Merit?

by David S. Cohen on Mar 4, 2008 11:03 AM EST in News

Here's the problem with the Phillies organization nicely encapsulated in the introduction to this article about Pat Gillick's successor likely being either Ruben Amaro or Mike Arbuckle.

If Montgomery decides to search inside the organization, a likelihood, he would have two candidates, Ruben Amaro Jr. and Mike Arbuckle, both assistants under Gillick.

People in the organization believe Amaro is the front-runner for the job. There are numerous reasons: He is involved in the daily big-league operations, including contract negotiations and makeup of the 40-man roster; he has become the de facto team spokesman; he is a former Phillie and also a native Philadelphian; he is well-educated, having graduated from Penn Charter and Stanford University; and in baseball's effort to diversify front offices, he has Latin American heritage.

Arbuckle joined the organization as scouting director in 1993. He now oversees the organization's professional scouting and minor-league operations and has become much more involved in the team's big-league operations since Gillick came aboard in November 2005.

Now, I could be reading too much into this, as this was written by Todd Zolecki and not by Dave Montgomery, but I'm pretty confident that Zolecki has his finger on the pulse of how the Phillies organization thinks.

So, here's the question: Notice anything missing from the description of Amaro's and Arbuckle's qualifications?

If you read the title of this entry, you'll have it pegged. It's all about connections and experience; there's nothing about merit or results. The rest of the article continues along the same lines.

The thing is, there are some good things pertaining to merit and results that could be said about these guys. They've certainly developed some marquee players and locked them up nicely during their tenure. Most teams would kill for the nucleus that the Phils have right now.

But, they've also presided over a team that, despite having such a talented nucleus, has won 0 playoff games in the last 13 years and lost only 3. That says a lot. To me, a lot more than connections, experience, and comfort level.

Maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned in the article.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

On the plus side, my school is Penn Charter's rival. On the minus, we don't think very highly of them.

by Alon on Mar 4, 2008 10:46 PM EST 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

Great point on merit.

I think, however, that the "merit" question needs to be applied to the entire organization. These are just two of the most visible members.

The Phillies' entire baseball operation has, indeed, not produced a consistent winner (read that as multiple division titles) for quite some time. The Bill Giles era has been nothing short of an overall disaster for fans who really care about winning.

In fact, if the entirety of the Giles era is examined (throw out the 1983 team as they were a Carpenter/Owens legacy), one could make the argument that 1993 and 2007 were abberations. There hasn't been any consistency with regard to making the playoffs

While they have recently produced a fine core of young talent, many of us seriously question whether thw Phillies baseball operation is capable of actually putting together a team that will enjoy mutiple playoff appearances.

Until they make the playoffs again, I choose to view 2007 as a joyfull abberation in 25+ years of abysmal Giles stewardship.

Montgomery, Arbuckle, Amaro, Wade, Gillick....they're just all players in the sad tune that Giles and the rest of "Teflonics" have played since they bought the team.

Merit matters on teams that are actually trying to win the WS. The Phillies ownership/management group is not one of them.

Actually winning the WS or making the playoffs multiple times are not the goals, but are merely viewed as byproducts of putting a "competitive" team on the field that sells tickets, ad revenue and merchandise.

As a result, Amaro and Arbuckle are judged by ownership on those "merits" and "results", not actually winning.

by AWH on Mar 4, 2008 11:46 PM EST 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

It's worth noting that the real "Giles Era" (1982-June 20, 1997) was markedly different from the Montgomery Era (June 21, 1997-present). Giles' winning percentage was .480. Monty's is .504.

Obviously, the same limited partners owned the team in both "eras" so there's at least an arguable basis for lumping them together. But there also might be a statistical basis for considering them to be separate.

by taco pal on Mar 5, 2008 2:32 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

Also even those numbers are skewed a bit by the fact that Monty inherited a very bad team from Giles, while Giles inherited a very good team from the Carpenter family.

by taco pal on Mar 5, 2008 2:43 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

If we are going to have on of these two as our GM, I at least hope they have been paying attention to Gillick's valuing 1st round picks and attempting to trade for players rather than sign guys like Lieber and sacrificing a 1st pick (I know he signed Gordon, but he already had 2 picks coming from Wagner). Now if the Phillies owners ever allowed a top tier free agent to be signed that would be different and giving up the pick would be no problem, but I do not see that happening anytime soon. I was hoping we would get a Josh Byrnes type of GM, but I guess that's not going to happen.

by zdavis2512 on Mar 5, 2008 12:41 PM EST 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

This strikes me as a big reason to hope for Arbuckle, whose legacy is as a drafting/development guy, rather than Amaro. If it's between those two, Arby is certainly my preference.

But to get back to Dave's original thesis, the question might come down to the fact that Amaro was a batboy for the sainted 1980 champions and has been a part of the Family since then, while newcomer Arbuckle has been around only since the early '90s.

by dajafi on Mar 5, 2008 1:05 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

Agreed that Arby is the preferred choice, he's been a back-bench candidate for numerous teams for awhile. The fact that he's a drafting/development guy, like dajafi says, is persuasive for me, since it's an area this franchise definitely needs to focus on to maintain any semblance of competitiveness.

The run of elite talent to emerge under Arbuckle's watch (Rolen, Rollins, Utley, Howard, Hamels, Myers, I guess you can count Burrell but that pick was kind of a no-brainer) is too consistent to be merely an accident, in my opinion.

by WholeCamels on Mar 5, 2008 1:12 PM EST 0 recs

Arby's Guys

I'm no expert at prospect evaluation, but to my untrained eyes it looks like over half of that group (Rollins, Myers, Utley and Howard) have been unexpectedly good -- better than their minor-league numbers would suggest, anyway.

Rollins' was pushed through the minors pretty fast, so his MiLB numbers reflect that he was always playing against older competition, but still I would have guessed his career line would more closely resemble what he put up from 2001-2003 than the beast he's developed into. Myers had pretty good numbers (also against older players), but I certainly didn't see his sudden improvement in 2005 coming. Utley was a first-round pick and had solid numbers in the minors, but nothing that shouted future superstar, and Howard had monster numbers but many if not most evaluators seemed to think his strikeout rate was a huge red flag.

This makes me wonder if there's a diamond in the rough or two among our ho-hum current crop of prospects. Any likely candidates?

by phatj on Mar 5, 2008 3:08 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: Arby's Guys

This is a pretty interesting point. Of all the Phillies' stars, only Hamels has been more or less as advertised. I remember thinking (and writing) that Utley was going to be Todd Walker, not Jeff Kent, and Rollins seemed like a slightly above-average regular rather than a future MVP.

So then the question becomes whether the Phils were primarily very, very lucky (keeping in mind that they had some disappointments too, most prominently Floyd), or whether they did something right (and replicable) to allow those guys to blossom.

by dajafi on Mar 5, 2008 3:13 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: Arby's Guys

One theory I've trotted out in the past is that maybe this is all explained by poor minor league instruction. That is to say, maybe the Phillies' instructional people are so bad that no one's minor league stats are ever inflated. So, if a guy is able to achieve some level of success in spite of the poor instruction, then he's got to be really good.

I don't think I really believe this, but hey, it's as good a theory as any.

The Phils have had very few busts over the years (defining "bust" as someone whose minor league stats inspired hype, but who failed to convert that into major league success). Floyd's one of the only ones. Maybe Ezequiel Astacio. I think the jury's still out on Elizardo Ramirez, and Marlon Byrd and Taylor Buchholz both had pretty good years in '07.

by taco pal on Mar 5, 2008 4:23 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: Arby's Guys

I limit the "bust" designation to guys who got huge bonuses and/or were hyped big-time when they entered pro ball. Lizard, Byrd and Buchholz all were decent prospects (and Byrd at least eventually became a solid big-leaguer), but not instant millionaires at age 18/21 or putative future all-stars. By the definition you suggest, Ryan Madson could be considered a bust because he didn't match the 16-4 record he once put up for Reading.

More broadly, I think the "lousy minor-league instruction" hypothesis is interesting--but as with most everything else where coaching is involved, we can't really do more than guess. Personally I think it was a combination of good scouting (I'm sure Rollins' small size and Howard's large size scared off some teams drafting in '96 and '01) and really good luck.

by dajafi on Mar 5, 2008 8:29 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: Arby's Guys

Agreed on your last point.

As for "bust", I think you might be reading a value judgment into my use of that term, which I didn't intend. I know that can be a loaded term, but I was just using it to describe a certain type of player that I needed a label for in order to get my point across. We can use some other term if that would be clearer.

by taco pal on Mar 5, 2008 9:33 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: Arby's Guys

Yeah, it's a very minor quibble. But I think "disappointment" is probably more what we're talking about here. Again, though, by that descriptor we're sullying every Travis Chapman who had three great months somewhere in the high minors... by definition, they're almost all disappointments.

Which is a little depressing, I guess.

by dajafi on Mar 5, 2008 9:50 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

What do we really know about Ruben Amaro, Junior? The above description doesn't tell us much. Amaro is widely hated amongst the Philies faithful -- mainly because he's been associated with Giles and Green and Wade and the other boogeymen of the organization I think.

But we really don't know much at all about what Amaro is like or what he is capable of or what he even does now. I suppose you can try to evaluate him based on what he says in interviews and stuff but I don't see much point in that. I think that's like evaluating a hitter based on how hard he swings.

Amaro has been a big part of a Phillies team that has won more games than nearly any club in the history of this sorry franchise. The ball club is a good one. You can argue that it could and perhaps should be better than it is and I couldn't dispute that point too hard.

But we really don't have much of an idea regarding how good or bad a GM Amaro (or Arbuckle) would be. We really know very little about either one. Amaro and Arbuckle are supposed to be pretty highly regarded around baaeball. They've had their hands in a pretty decent amount of success with this club.

I've seen a lot of fair haired boys (and girls too) who were put into positions with great expectations and who fell flat on their faces. And I've seen plenty of guys and gals who didn't seem all that wonderful do swimmingly well when promoted to positions of great responsibility.

If Amaro is indeed the next GM, I will judge him on his actions as I judge Gillick. Right now, as far as I'm concerned, it's pretrty near impossible to tell if he'd be any good or not.

by smitty on Mar 5, 2008 1:57 PM EST 0 recs

Re: What Ever Happened to Merit?

While I'd agree that it shouldn't be the end-all, I think it's a good thing that the Phillies are taking diversity into account in considering Amaro for the job. It's about time this team hired a Jewish GM.

by taco pal on Mar 5, 2008 6:08 PM EST 0 recs