Congratulations, You Just Bought an MLB Team

by Yakker on Oct 23, 2007 12:59 PM EDT Comment 30 comments

Hopefully, it didn't cost you too much, because you are tight with Bud and got a good, solid discount. But regardless, now you've got to hire a GM to help you compete.

A few facts:

-- You're loaded, but you're also stingy. Your financial whiz kid bean counter tells you that for 2008, a $80M major league payroll will still make you some money. What happens after that is anyone's guess.

-- You're smart, and know that winning makes money, but also that making money is winning.

-- You understand and are committed to player recruitment and development.

-- Your ballpark plays fairly neutral.

So, which of the following young GMs do you take, and why?

Poll

Which of these young GMs would you take to start your franchise?

Josh Byrnes, Arizona

82 votes

Jon Daniels, Texas

15 votes

Dayton Moore, Kansas City

87 votes

Other (please explain, and no obvious guys like Beane, Epstein, Shapiro, etc.)

38 votes

222 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

re

Winning doesn't necessarily make money. This is one of the greatest conundrums in sports. If you can find a situation where wins and profits are correlated, great, but they are generally unrelated.

by mckeeno on Oct 23, 2007 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Without looking at the literature

(and I'm sure there's plenty), I'd say this make sense from an economics perspective: if winning made money, everyone would be doing it. :-)

by mraver on Oct 23, 2007 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Winning does make money, because winning teams generally sell more seats, jerseys, and probably are more profitable with their TV/radio coverage than losing teams.

Now, that is not the same thing as saying that winning is profitable, because that depends on your expenses. But IMO winning generally does make more money than losing, as a revenue matter.

by Yakker on Oct 23, 2007 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

conditional

You have to remember that things like merchandise sales are shared equally amongst all clubs. The biggest money maker for these teams are the privately held cable networks. NESN, YES & WGN are what really enables the Yanks, Sox & Cubs to flex their financial muscle.

Remember also the importance of difference in markets. The Dodgers are going to draw 3mil a year almost regardless of whether they win or not because of LA's population, weather and stadium size.

by mckeeno on Oct 23, 2007 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

But, at the margins, or ceteris paribus as we economists like to say, winning makes money.

by Yakker on Oct 23, 2007 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I was using "making money" to mean "profitable". :-)

And a anyways, that's the only interesting question here. I was just pointing out that winning isn't necessarily profitable.

by mraver on Oct 23, 2007 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

DePo

Paul D.

Why go through all the hassle of stealing someone else's GM?

Dude knows his stuff, just hopefully my new team is in a city where the sportswriters will give him a chance to work his magic.

by elricsi on Oct 23, 2007 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

I heart DePo

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 23, 2007 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+2

If you give the man a chance he'll make you a very happy team owner.

by nheck on Oct 23, 2007 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fourthed

MAN LAW!

Also, I take out a restraining order on Simers and Plaschke, just to cover all the bases.

"...and the only things I've found better than listening to Vin Scully are listening to Keith Jackson and uncut cocaine." (bleedjaxblue)

by drjayphd on Oct 23, 2007 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

DePo

Not picking on Jay, but figured I'd respond to all the DePo thoughts in one place:

As much as I was impressed by DePo's approach in L.A., we have to acknowledge that there's more to being a GM than player analysis (although that is of course a very large part). The comment about Plasschke nailed it. DePodesta was not good with media relations, and he wasn't very effective at player relations either (or other GM relations, though that's probably easier now than it was 3 years ago because the mainstream has begun to accept sabremetrical analysis). As an ex-player, I think Beane got a pass on some of that, and Epstein won so quickly that he brought many into his camp. But DePodesta has neither of those things in his favor.

Given that, do any of you have concerns about DePodesta's ability to handle the "PR/People" side of the General Manager job?

by Yakker on Oct 23, 2007 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no

PR is for losers

seriously, though

when the Dodgers won the previous season (obviously, not based on DePo's genius, but rather on the team he inherited), then there was no criticism from the media

when they lost the next year (again, not because of DePo), then the media tore him to shreds

when you LOSE, it helps to not be as vulnerable to media attack; when you win, everyone's happy regardless

if you're going to take being an owner seriously, you HAVE to commit to a GM for the long-haul -- the work a GM does is a long-term transformation, not a one-year project

if you're taking making money AND winning seriously, you want to follow the Yankees model, which is to bring together a strong enough core of players to create the beginnings of a dynasty, which, in turn (if you're in a major media market), will give you the money (and core of players) to continue to attract big-name free agents

all of this means is that you sit tight and do NOTHING during the first few years if a few Bill Plaschke's want to run their fat mouths -- and trust that they'll shut the hell up when your team is winning trophies in five years

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 23, 2007 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

I think we agree that when you pick a guy, you stick with him even when the going gets tough in the media and give him time to put his plan into effect.

But, in the first instance, why not select someone who can keep the press happy? Isn't that a skill that should be considered for a good GM? Unless you think that DePodesta is so far above any of the other excellent young GMs and AGMs around baseball these days...

by Yakker on Oct 23, 2007 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

personally

i think DePo's head-and-shoulders above the competition

if you're worried about PR, delegate the responsibilities to other people as much as possible

obviously, because of his status as a Harvard-educated, "emotionless" stathead (or whatever else), DePo's going to attract criticism whether he's the one talking to the media or not, but you can certainly hope to limit the damage this way

also, though i agree with your practical sentiment, i think it generally should fall further down the list for GMs than it does for, say, managers (who are 90% PR-machines)

honestly, even in a big-market, i don't think what happened to DePo was foreseeable -- very few GMs have received such public scrutiny, and, when they do, it's been based on years of bad decisions, not on "relateability"

maybe DePo is really that much worse, but i have the feeling he got a few bad breaks and ran into a perfect storm in LA at the time

of course, now that it's happened once and he, in particular, has that reputation, it might be that he'll have to deal with the label wherever else he goes

by bleedjaxblue on Oct 23, 2007 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

DePo

"of course, now that it's happened once and he, in particular, has that reputation, it might be that he'll have to deal with the label wherever else he goes."

I think that this is, unfortunately, exactly right. DePodesta is now the poster child for "Brilliant, but socially awkward laptop-crunching stats nerd." And, he's also an easy target for any 50+ beat writer or columnist who feels threatened by technology, or just wants to flex his muscles a bit.

by Yakker on Oct 24, 2007 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The LA media did tear DePo to shreds,

However, he pretty much asked for it when he tried his best to seal them out. But that wasn't the reason he was fired, nor was the Dodgers being real unhappy with how the roster was being run. His subordinates just really hated working for him and he even rubbed his superiors the wrong way. He's a brilliant man and has a lot to offer an organization, but he just showed the Dodgers that he wasn't GM material.

I'm sure he learned some things as a GM and I wouldn't doubt he'd be an improvement over what he was to the Dodgers if he gets another opportunity, though. I wouldn't doubt that he'd want to try GMing a team in a much smaller media market.

by elrey34 on Oct 24, 2007 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Logan White

Logan White hands down, with that kinda of $ and his track record, I'd be looking at a young future core that would rival the dodgers in six years.

by beautox on Oct 23, 2007 2:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll pick

Towers

by Havok1517 on Oct 23, 2007 5:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I really like

what he has done with the team aand the players seem to really like him.

by Havok1517 on Oct 23, 2007 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about Kim Ng?

I'm all for the first female GM in baseball.

by alexwithclass on Oct 23, 2007 6:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Mr. Moore

:-)

by doublestix on Oct 23, 2007 6:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You know

I thought he'd run away with the poll, but I guess there's a lot of folks who like what J. Byrnes is doing in Arizona. Even his odd moves (extending E. Byrnes) are coming up roses right now.

Also, I'm surprised by how few people took Jon Daniels. He made some early blunders (C. Young) and needed a few years to get enough authority to control Tom Hicks somewhat, but IMO the Teixeira for Salty, et al. move is closer to his true level going forward.

by Yakker on Oct 23, 2007 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll be the first to say this.......

but not the last and this is comming from a diegard Giants fan: Lgan White

by bartonboi on Oct 23, 2007 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chris Antonetti

DePodesta wouldnt be terrible either, but the media would assuredly jump on Paul immediately while with Antonetti you at least have a chance he can prove his ability with his product first

by Dan on Oct 23, 2007 7:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Shapiro's...

right hand man is my pick too.

I like DePo, but I do agree that he wasn't a very authoritative guy. He'd be my third choice.

by SenorGato88 on Oct 23, 2007 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely thirded on Antonetti.

The guy oversaw the creation and development of DiamondView and while this will label him as a stathead from the media and the general fan, he's also held positions in both Montreal's and Cleveland's Minor League Operations, gaining experience in the scouting and player development field. The Indians are the best in baseball at collecting as much information possible and using it to their advantage -- faster and more efficient than anyone. Chris Antonetti is one of the most important reasons why -- if not the most.

When Antonetti becomes a GM to one lucky organization, he'll probably create another DiamondMind, and it'll make that organization multiply its efficiency.

by elrey34 on Oct 24, 2007 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep...

if I'm stealing any young FO guy from somewhere...I'm doing it from Cleveland first and everyone else later.

They used that thing we all have..."common sense"...and blended scouting and sabermetrics while the rest of the baseball world was fighting over which one was better.

Smart organization. I see alot of teams, like the Red Sox and Padres, headed (or well on their way) in that direction.

by SenorGato88 on Oct 24, 2007 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see the Devil Rays first.

They have the right man in charge to do it, and with the amount of resources they have, they pretty much have to.

Which also brings up another name to consider in this thread: Andrew Friedman. I'd be psyched to have him running my team as well.

by elrey34 on Oct 24, 2007 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Friedman

Would be an interesting choice, and I wish I had him in the poll. Although my guess is he would have suffered Daniels's fate--no one was gonna knock Moore or Byrnes off the ledge right now.

I'll defer to avid followers of the DRO (which I am certainly not), but I get the impression that AF is an excellent operations guy. Now, that's an important skill, but, and this is similar to my concern about DePodesta, I would prefer someone in the role who is a better manager (and I mean that in the corporate sense, not the baseball sense).

Imagine you're running a company. You have a COO to make sure the trains run on time, but you need a leader with vision.

by Yakker on Oct 25, 2007 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs