Ruben Gets It
by taco pal on Feb 2, 2010 1:41 PM EST
Email
PrintI've got to give the man credit. He gets it exactly right here.
"I was talking to some people the other day," Amaro recalled, "and I said, ‘I’m not a dummy. I know what Cliff Lee means to our rotation in addition to Halladay and [Cole] Hamels. It’s a no-brainer.’ … Our goal is to be a contender every year — not just to be a competitor, but to be a contender every year. That’s really my job. As an executive of the club, it’s my job to do what I can to try to maintain that level of talent on the club and that hope from the fans. So, yes, I’d like to have a championship, but not at the cost of having our organization not be good for 10 years. Absolutely not. That’s not the goal. The goal is to be a contender every year. And once you get to the World Series or get to the playoffs, it’s really a matter of who’s playing the best baseball, who’s hottest, who has the karma."
Emphases mine.
I was pretty vehemently opposed to the Halladay/Lee trades, and I still think we gave up too much for Halladay and got back too little for Lee. But there was nothing wrong in principle with trading a one-year rental of Lee for prospects, and while the three prospects we got from Seattle may not be studs, they are still pretty decent.
The point of all of this is to say, although the execution of these trades may not have been the best, in the long run the most important thing is for the GM to have the right philosophy. And Ruben appears to have it.
As I read it, his quote is a flat rejection of the commonly-held notion that the Phils only have a short "window of opportunity" to contend and thus should bet everything they have on the here-and-now. He's right to reject that notion because it's bunk. There is no window. We can stay in contention indefinitely if we play our cards right. Any transactions we make should therefore be value-driven and time-neutral.
The majority of people always want to believe in a "window" because wanting instant gratification is part of human nature, and so, they're hard-wired to jump at any plausible rationalization that lets them indulge that desire. But doing that usually just leads people to do foolish things.
81 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, I’m a bigger fan of both trades than Taco is. And I think Rube hits the nail on the head here, once you traded 3 key guys for Halladay you really had to move Lee or risk things getting ugly in 2011 with no replacements in the system for high cost free agents. Pitching prospects always make me nervous, but I like Ramirez and Aumont, though Aumont’s mechanics need fixing, I don’t fear his arm will fly off.
Sorry tired and rambling a bit here.
2 RP's
and a Bourn replacement. That’s not even recouping half of what was traded away to get Halladay or Lee.
FAIL.
If you compare Lee trade to Lee trade
I think we made out better than Cleveland who got a AAAA shortstop, an erratic starter who will spend the next 5 years tantalizing and frustrating them alternately, a backup catcher and a Single A pitcher who may be a future Ace or who may never get past AA. 2 RPs and a Bourn replacement look pretty good comparatively, to me.
sorry
He said FAIL. End of argument.
Maybe take up gardening?
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Feb 3, 2010 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention his facts are just wrong. Ramirez has always been a SP prospect. Aumont is at least going to attempt to convert back to SP. And Gillies is a far better prospect than Bourn was at the same age. At 20, Bourn was still in college, then spent an entire season at Low-A at 21. Gillies was 20 last year in High-A. Also, while we don’t know if Gillies will ever develop power, he’s listed as being two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than Bourn, so it’s not like their body types are all that similar.
Obviously, all prospects are risky, but “2 RP’s and a Bourn replacement” isn’t exactly a middle-of-the-bell-curve estimate. (Shocking, I know.)
I assumed he was projecting
That Ramirez and Aumont will be RPs when they make it to the show and Gillies will be Bourn II (Bourn Supremacy, may be better to say?). Two RP’s a Bourn wouldn’t be a half bad trade result. The least it would mean is you flipped a 1 year rental for 3 serviceable MLB players.
I still think we gave up too much for Halladay and got back too little for Lee. But there was nothing wrong in principle with trading a one-year rental of Lee for prospects
Taco Pal… you nailed it. And this is the same conversation where Ruben pats himself on the back by calling himself “aggressive,” right? Where’s that damn smug alert rating? I want to see what level we’re at.
I am still in the mindset that keeping Lee for another strong run at the WFC in 2010 is a smarter move than planning for the future 2012,2013 etc.
The lineup we have is still the best in the NL, the bench is much improved, but still have question marks about our rotation and depth of the pen. With an aging, and more expensive nucleus that begins to go their seperate ways (Werth the first possibility after 2010, Howard, Rollins, and at least one corner OF spot open after 2011), our window is slowly closing, so why not stick with Lee for another run at the WS?
Gillies is just another athlete in the OF, Aumont could be something if he gets his mechanics right and Ramirez could be the best of the bunch, but in the end they are still prospects. Not one of the 3 guys fills our biggest minors needs, infielders and 1-2 corner OF. No one projects to replace Howard, Rollins, Polanco and Ibanez or Werth, with Brown taking up one spot.
It comes down to the “instant gratification” vs delayed gratification argument, but imagine how fun this year could have been with both Aces and an improved Hamels, vs. having a single Ace, an improved Hamels and some question marks from a Cliff Lee deal not even on the radar yet.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
My post isn’t about the particulars of the trade so let’s stay away from that.
What I’m trying to get at is the underlying philosophical question of whether, under the circumstances, the Phillies should value the present over the future, or whether they should value them both equally. I think they should value them both equally, and if for some reason they’re forced to choose one over the other, they should choose the future.
The reason most people give for valuing the present more highly is that the Phillies only have a limited “window of opportunity” to win. But that just isn’t true. It’s true that the Phillies aren’t going to have their current core around forever. But there’s no reason why they can’t use wise player development strategies to replenish their talent on a continuous basis. (Unless of course they foolishly trade away all their prospects for short-term gain.)
The only teams that can rightfully claim to have short “windows” are low-budget teams like the Brewers. No matter how good you are at player development (and the Brewers are pretty good at it), it’s really hard to build a contending team with player development alone if you’re going to lose every one of your home-grown stars after their sixth years or so. So, these teams arguably need to concentrate their talent into short “bursts.” Every once in a while, you trade a LaPorta for a Sabathia because you know that Fielder and Braun alone can’t win anything alone. You know that once Fielder/Braun leave, you’re going to be royally screwed, but you take that risk because your choice is arguably between winning once every few years and winning never.
The Phillies aren’t like that. Because of their budget size, they can retain at least some market-price players and so, they’re capable of being good every year as long as they don’t screw stuff up. So the Brewers logic doesn’t apply to them.
The reason why I say the Phillies should value the future over the present if forced to choose is that there are diminishing returns on adding value to a team that’s already good. Let’s say you have two teams: one at the 70th percentile of talent and one at the 90th percentile of talent. Then you add the same X amount of talent to each team. I think the first team’s probability of winning the World Series increases more than the second team’s probability increases. In that instantaneous moment between the Halladay trade and the Lee trade, I think it was pretty clear that the 2010 Phillies were more talented than, say, the 2012 Phillies could be projected to be. So it made more sense to add talent to the 2012 team, all other things being equal.
I understand where you’re coming from on your post and reply, and it’s already done and over with and we can’t change anything about it, (but it’s still fun to debate it).
When the Phils traded for Halladay, they give up all the possibilities of what Taylor, Drabek, D’Arnaud will be as a Phillie, for the ace we needed in Halladay, but that is a win now and over the next 3 years move. So we turn and trade a big piece of our win now puzzle for prospects that many say are below value, just to get away from the $9M owed to Lee plus what he could command in an open market.
With your percentiles example, that’s all well and good and I agree with your logic if and only if these players picked up in the Lee deal were 100% set in stone going to make a difference. It’s a far far stretch to say that right now. So we’re giving up the chance to win now for the possibility of winning later, wouldn’t you want to take the odds?
I look at the eagles for this analogy, the eagles have been a very good team for the last 8 years. The eagles have maybe even been the best team in the NFC over that time period, but have nothing to show for it in SB wins. As the phillies, would you rather be good (and being good isn’t guaranteed with the big 3 we gained) for 8 years and win 1 championship or good for 5-6 years with 2 championships and hoping the draft picks gained from Lee help the club begin to climb back to the top of the mountain.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
See, I think the way the Eagles have run their team is exactly the right way to go. In hindsight, it’s easy to say their plan hasn’t worked out so far, but mathematically, it’s just better to play 70% odds five times in a row than 80% odds once (just picking numbers out of a hat).
Having Lee this year doesn’t guarantee anything either; it’s still just a question of probabilities. It would raise our odds of winning it all this year by a certain number of percentage points, but a great many single-season teams with even more talent than we would have had have failed to win it all. Betting everything on one year is just a sucker’s bet.
Moving on. You say: “With your percentiles example, that’s all well and good and I agree with your logic if and only if these players picked up in the Lee deal were 100% set in stone going to make a difference.” I don’t agree. What I would concede is that you have to take a “net present value” or something like that. Obviously you can’t take a high-end estimate of what the prospects will turn out to be and compare that to Lee. You have to use the midpoint of the bell curve in your comparison. But just because the prospects are more speculative than Lee doesn’t mean they can’t equal Lee in value. For instance, those who work out will be under cost-control for six years while Lee would only have been here for one more year.
The point of all of this is to say, although the execution of these trades may not have been the best, in the long run the most important thing is for the GM to have the right philosophy. And Ruben appears to have it.
See, I think the way the Eagles have run their team is exactly the right way to go. In hindsight, it’s easy to say their plan hasn’t worked out so far, but mathematically, it’s just better to play 70% odds five times in a row than 80% odds once (just picking numbers out of a hat).
I don’t have anything to add, but just wanted to say: agreed completely on both of these points (the top one was pulled from the post itself). Great post.
Excellent point on marginal utility
“Let’s say you have two teams: one at the 70th percentile of talent and one at the 90th percentile of talent. Then you add the same X amount of talent to each team. I think the first team’s probability of winning the World Series increases more than the second team’s probability increases.”
+1. More people need to consider the precise point above with respect to the Lee trade.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Feb 3, 2010 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
I’m starting to think the biggest problem with the Lee trade is the “what if” recriminations that are going to follow this team all season.
by Boundforbeach on Feb 2, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Long-term Phillies fans are right to be a little hysterical about putting all their eggs in one basket, as such years are oases in the midst of a desert. Keep in mind we are still talking about the losingest professional sports club of all time. Some of us have loooong memories.
But taco pal, you are right. It’s not like the formula for success is a mystery. In every (well both) up cycles in the modern era where the Phillies have enjoyed playoff-caliber teams for more than three seasons in a row, it’s organizational depth + fan support + right FA at right time. Not that this is easy!
It is heartening to see a GM smugly take the mindset that we don’t have to sell out for one year — we can be, and we can think of ourselves, not as baseball locusts, but in similar ways that teams who always manage to be around come October despite not having Yankees or Red Sox money. The Cardinals, Dodgers, Twins, Braves, A’s – each decade, they are going to have 2-3 contenders or division winners, or so it seems.
Long memories? Naaaah, but...
I am still pissed that the 1915 series was moved to Braves field instead of Fenway. The integrity of the game was affected, just so more people could be seated in Boston. Damn MLB. Almost as much of a travesty as the split WS game in 2008, causing Hamels to have to come out.
The 1915 Phillies were robbed.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Feb 3, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Just Yellow
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Feb 3, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Well, well. As if right on cue, Sam Donnellon chimed in today with a somewhat incoherent, mostly idiotic column about Amaro’s quote. His argument in a nutshell: because the Braves only won one WS and the Indians won zero, we shouldn’t emphasize player development. We should play future-is-now and just “go for it.”
Donnellon can always be counted on to deliver the lowest common denominator “fan’s perspective” for every hot topic in Philly sports. He isn’t the worst columnist we’ve got though (he’s only third-worst), because he does it in a tone that’s less smug than Bob Ford and less emotionally needy (and smug) than John Gonzalez.
All I can say to this is there must be some really horrible poker players in the Philadelphia sports media and fan base because hardly anyone understands basic probability. Losing on a bad beat doesn’t mean you played your cards wrong. Getting lucky doesn’t mean you played your cards right.
Donnellon’s piece was the first thing I read this morning. Complete and utter drivel. There was no flow to the article and he made a poor argument to debase Amaro’s rationale. He was clearly reaching for a reaction.
by Phils 2036 World CH on Feb 3, 2010 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
I had absolutely no idea what the point to the article was—was he arguing in favor of being the Yankees or the Braves? Not trading Lee? It was a meandering piece meant to incite fan response, and did not fail in that sense. One reader responds with “Prospects? Prospects are garbage.”
Even emulating the Braves model, what did having 3 HoF pitchers in the Braves rotation get them in their 14 years of dominance? One WS title. One. In 3 tries. People seem to think that by adding Lee the Phillies are a lock to win the WS. You’re 100% correct that they don’t grasp the laws of probability.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
I’d put Donnellon fourth – Carchidi has to fit somewhere in the Triumvirate of Journalistic Ineptitude
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
We always talk about the ones we don’t like here, but who are the ones you DO like to read? I’m a Rich Hofman and Les Bowen fan myself, and look forward to special Bill Lyon contributions. Bill Conlin, though never one for stats, does occasionally put out a nice piece. He does have a gift for prose.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
On my part, I’m not familiar enough to know the ones I do like – I don’t live in Philly (and haven’t for some time), so I mostly just catch links here and there to various columns. I’m not familiar with Gonzalez at all, but Ford and Donnellon I do recognize as columnists whose writing never impresses me. I’ll have to keep an eye out this year when I see a column I like and remember who wrote it.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
I like Bowen too, and most of the young guys (Murphy, Kapadia, Fagan, etc.). But they’re mainly reporters, not columnists. It’s a blurry line, and they all do commentary from time to time as well, but there’s still a basic distinction.
Among regular columnists, Hoffman might be the best of the bunch, although I find his work to be uneven. I’d probably rank Smallwood second and Sheridan third. I like Dick Jerardi and Bernard Fernandez, but they mostly do niche stuff. Ashley Fox is horrible. Conlin is what he is. I’m probably forgetting some people.
Crap. I obviously meant to say "most of the young guys and young ladies…" My bad.
And I guess Bowen actually is a columnist after all. So he would be no. 1.
As a reporter, I think Fagan is the absolute best. She not only knows her basketball but also (at the risk of sounding sexist) has some sizable stones. Being a female myself, I think I can be forgiven, no?
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
I admire Fagan as well as she was the first this year to call out Coach Eie Joran (no typos there folks) on his nonsense of a coching rotations this year. Was she late? Yeah, all the writers were late, but she was really the first, and most complete, and then the others jumped on her bandwagon, she also has kept it up and allowed no excuses or for Coach Joran to get away with anything in his usually baffling post game comments.
by jemagee on Feb 3, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I love that Ruben has this attitude and wants the team to be competitive every year (and I also agree that with the Phillies budget, they are different than smaller market teams that must “win now” when they find that good core of players).
That being said, as someone said above, it is really hard to do this consistently – developing players, drafting well, signing the right FA at the right time, etc. The Phillies have put together a possibly once-in-a-generation lineup. I would argue that it will be many, many years until they are able to field a 1-8 that is as good as their team should be in the coming year (assuming Rollins bounces back a little and they stay relatively healthy all year). For that reason, I would’ve liked to see them go with Halladay, Lee, Hamels this year and perhaps see if they could bolster some prospects by moving Blanton (whom I like and am happy the Phils signed to an extension) or through other moves.
Certainly it was not a guarantee that they would win this year, but it would’ve been a fun ride, I think. But in Amaro I trust and I think that when the time comes he will make the moves to keep us competitive and hopefully we will be having more parades soon (maybe I’ll even be able to fly back home to get to one)…
Support Coyotes Hockey - Five For Howling
(Oh, and go Philly teams as well!)
agree on premise, not sold on execution
Of course I’m a believer in the development-first approach; I was the guy who posted this piece of prospect porn last July.
But the first Lee trade obviously was a masterstroke, and my initial thought about the December Halladay/Lee trades still holds: the real act of organizational self-confidence would have been to try and wait on Halladay (who was almost Phillies-or-bust at that point), hold onto Lee, sign whichever agreed first to a long-term deal, then commit to quickly refilling the talent hole by going over-slot in the draft and being aggressive on the foreign talent market.
The strong (and entirely understandable) possibility that this all would have entailed too much risk for the Phillies management and ownership group, coupled with my relative optimism on the prospects we got back for Lee, impels me to not bash them too hard on the sequence that actually unfolded. But I think the Red Sox probably would have done it differently, accepting higher risk for 2011-2012 in return for taking a best shot while everyone was under contract and in their primes for 2010.
Prospect porn
Nice term. Trademark it.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Feb 3, 2010 5:08 PM EST up reply actions
How I wish the Phillies had additional revenue streams so that they could operate more like the Mets, Yanks and Sox. Why does the only baseball team in the 4th largest consumer media market in the U.S. not have its own television network?
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
I’m just speculating, but I wonder if it has something to do with an overarching marketing strategy on the part of Comcast not wanting to pigeon-hole itself as a “regional” network. A Phillies Network, which would surely be a Comcast entity, might result in just that.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
But they have quite a few regional networks throughout the U.S. now, don’t they?
Does Comcast have any interests/investments in the Phillies other than broadcasting rights?
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
I don’t believe so (they do own the flyers, sixers, and wachovia center, which aggravates me because getting them to sell the sixers would be a night mare)…
I know that the yankees own YES – sort of
The red sox do own most (80%) of NESN
SNY is more garbled " It is owned jointly by the New York Mets, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast."
by jemagee on Feb 3, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
What sort of income boost would a Phillies network figure out to be? More to the point, outside of tacking on a couple thousand seats to CBP aka fantasy, how else can the Phillies expand their revenue stream?
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Feb 3, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Well they could raise ticket prices…not sure it would help, but they could try :)
Problem is that if the phillies TRIED to launch their own network – Comcast would have to pick it up – where is the incentive for comcast to pick it up to compete directly with their own comcast sports network?
by jemagee on Feb 3, 2010 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Ticket prices is one way, of course, but I really do wonder what the tipping point for that is? Is 2-3 bucks per seat really going to be a critical factor when we’re going into 150+ million payrolls? Eh, that and fan backlash might not be worth the headache.
Though in the same vien, that’s an extra $11 million to play with and tickets are still pretty affordable otherwise.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Feb 3, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
There isn’t. I wish they hadn’t become so ingrained with Comcast, and its predecessor, PRISM, for so long and that they had the foresight to develop their own network.
/sigh
At this point, in order to develop their own, maybe as an offshoot of MLB Network (perhaps they expand some day) and get picked up by competing cable entities like Fios, DirecTV and other satellite. It’s probably counter-productive as Comcast is now getting so big they could attempt to prevent or affect it.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
I don’t know that the Phillies’ revenues are really so out of line with what the fundamentals say that “ought” to be.
It’s true that the Philadelphia media market is bigger than the Boston market. But there’s a difference between (on one hand) the Philadelphia and Boston markets, and (on the other hand) the Phillies’ and Red Sox’ markets. As I understand it, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island aren’t in the Boston media market, but they are in the Red Sox’ market because there are no other teams in those states, plus they share a common cultural identification. Here, the Phillies’ market ends at the border of the Philadelphia market. It just doesn’t extend past Mercer County, NJ or the Maryland border, and there’s really no way to change that.
So there isn’t anything odd about the fact that the Red Sox are richer than the Phillies. I’m sure that having their own cable station helps them a bit too, but it’s probably just at the margins.
A better template to aspire to would be the Cubs and Braves whose games were shown nationally, every day on TBS and WGN (I never understood how some local Chicago station got carried nationally, but kudos to them for pulling off that Jedi mind trick).
I live in Raleigh and there are a ton of Braves fans here, because “well, the games were on TV all the time, so they were the only team we could follow”
I don’t know about a network but, we are getting exposure – I was in CVS and I saw 3 baseball rags with Chase Utley on the cover…it’s not hard to believe some aspiring 10 year old 2B in Nebraska might become a Phillies fan because that’s the team his baseball idol plays for. If they want to expand the market then the universe has been kind to them because they built a winning team during this baseball Renaissance. Granted the recesssion muddies the waters but if one key component you need is the “being in the right place at the right time” moment then I don’t see it get any better than this.
I think those covers are regional; around me they all have Jeter, Rodriguez, Santana, etc.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
thanks
oh well…sorry 10 yr old 2B Nebraskan… no Utley for you. Although I still think this is the optimal time for doing anything if that’s in the plans.
oh absolutely
Elite team, wide range of stars to root for… but no, it’s Jeterjeterjeterjeterjeterjeter
http://www.thegoodphight.com
The Nebraskan's probably getting Greinke covers
I haven’t looked to see what the local covers are here in Florida.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Ugh, here’s another really bad article about the Amaro press conference. It may be marginally more coherent than Donnellon’s, but it’s equally obtuse.
Here’s the main thesis, if you could call it that.
Now some people might reason that the GM is rightly explaining how the Phillies cannot buy championships or have a payroll up to a third more than the record $140 million the team is spending on salaries in 2010. At some point, they’ll explain, low-priced rookies and up-and-comers will have to take over for potential high-priced All-Stars like Jayson Werth or Ryan Howard.
To those folks we ask, how’s that Kool-Aid taste? Is it fruity?
When a Phillies executive says his team cannot be like the New York Yankees and up the payroll in order to make sure guys like Werth and Howard and Utley and Rollins spend the rest of their careers in South Philly, it does not mean anything about giving the young and hungry kids a chance. Nope, all it means is that the Philadelphia Phillies L.P., are a corporation that plans to be run as a business with its eyes on the bottom line. Sure, they would all like to win championships and they have hired Amaro to be the guy to put together a championship-level team as long as he comes in under budget and maximizes profit.
Gosh, you mean Philadelphia Phillies L.P. isn’t in business to donate money to the community? What a scandal!
More:
In biology they study how form develops and grows. Mixed in there are theories of evolution, function and structure. Students of biology have a good idea of how an organism will travel from infancy to adulthood, which seems to be a perfect training ground for a future baseball general manager. Cliff Lee an organism in its complete and mature form. He was in his peak and was on target for another above-average season.
But Lee was traded for ballplayers still in development. Though baseball people have a pretty good idea of what they will be when they are ready for the big leagues, nothing is promised or guaranteed.
In other words, Amaro traded the known to Seattle for the unknown only he’s talking like it’s a given.
Well, actually, no Amaro isn’t. There is nothing in Amaro’s quote that indicates that he believes the prospects are a “given.” And they aren’t.
But you know what else isn’t a “given”? One season of Cliff Lee isn’t a “given.” Lee may be a “fully evolved organism,” but nevertheless, he could have an off-year (as he did in 2007). Or he could get injured. Or even if he does fine, the Phillies could fail to make the playoffs for unrelated reasons. Or the Phillies could make the playoffs and yet fail to get through the MLB postseason crapshoot. One season of Lee guarantees nothing. But you know who’s talking about him as if he does? John Finger.
Amaro may be a smug dude, but it’s better to be smug than to be both smug and ignorant.
What always makes me mad is how people forget that everyone was a prospect at some point. I guess the WIP crowd just assumes when guys are drafted, half become gritty, veteran major-leaguers right away and the other half become “unknowns” in the farm system. Prospects need an opportunity at some point.
I read that piece, too. What’s up with taking the populist side these days? I guess readership really is down; people are afraid to take the road less traveled.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
Mainstream press would increase its readership by smugly angering middlebrow schlubs rather than pandering to them. Conlin does this successfully from time to time.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 3, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
Totally agreed. Why on earth would someone call into Eskin just to have him call he/she a moron? For some reason, they respond more to negative criticism.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luuko
Self-loathing, thy name is Philadelphia.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Feb 4, 2010 7:18 AM EST up reply actions
Throwaway quote
This was a complete throwaway quote that any senior leader makes at a company. Take almost nothing from it.
Yeah, this analysis is almost 100% wrong. Amaro didn’t make this as an off-the-cuff statement in front of his employees at, say, a team-building seminar or a golf outing. He made it while being questioned by the news media on an issue that has been the most controversial of his tenure as GM. He almost certainly prepared his answer specifically to respond to probing questions that he knew would be directed his way. I might entertain a claim that he was lying if backed by plausible evidence, but it most certainly was not a “throwaway line.”
Yup.
I’ve never really seen a “throwaway paragraph” before. And it wasn’t a generic “We did what was best for the team” quote — it was a tacit admission that he’s following a long-term philosophy (at the expense of the short-term) because it’s the best way to do business in this sport.
No way
You have never been to an investors day analyst conference then. This is EXACTLY the kind of canned response/language you see from any publicly-traded company CEO that is doing well, trading at a premium by various measures of book value, and is looking to not take a hit by the investor community because they are sacrificing for the short term.
You honestly expect Amaro to get up in front of the media and say something like “we are in a strong position for the next 2 years to really contend but I am not certain beyond 2011” or to say something like “we are looking to remain every year even beyond 2011 but I am sure not if we will be able to truly contend at the level we are at now.”
CEO always need to project confidence and optimism to the public/investors even when shit is hitting the fan internally.
You seem to be confused as to what my point was.
What is notable about Amaro’s recent behavior is not the level of confidence he has projected about the results that the team may achieve in the future. Rather, what is notable about it is that – previously through his actions and now through his words – he has openly embraced a long-term strategy and has rejected the concept of a short-term window. In case you haven’t noticed, that underlying philosophical viewpoint is just-a-little-bit controversial in this town. It is not logical to see that aspect of his comment as a “throwaway.”
What long-term strategy?
What comments or actions (besides the Lee trade which was more than just about building for the future) has Amaro demonstrated that he is ‘building for the long-term?’ and how is this different from an overwhelming majority of GMs in baseball who generally stay something similiar each offseason building for the future, etc.?
What do you expect Amaro to say this offseason? “Yeah we extended the window of opportunity to be real contenders through 2011 but after that we might take a step or two back from where we are now.” Of course not. He is going to go into vague generalities and talk about being a ‘contender’ with a ‘long-term’ strategy just like he did including little/no specifics.
Don't doubt the line about "being contenders"
That the Phils “want to be contenders” every year because Monty and Co. have realized that it really drives up revenues, improves operating income, and really has increased the value of the franchise which has made them one of the more valuable franchises according to Forbes (#7 last year at $496M)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
