PDA

View Full Version : Looks like Depodesta is in as GM...


mantis1212
02-11-2004, 05:01 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1731996

One step closer to a deal possibly...

MarkEdward
02-11-2004, 05:08 PM
Well, if I'm a Dodger fan, I think I'd be very pleased with this turn of events. Depodesta is a smart guy, although it will be interesting to see how he deals personal side of GMing, like negotiating contracts and such (in Moneyball, he comes across like a 'quiet man behind the computer screen'). Either way, he should make a fine GM. This isn't to say Dan Evans has been a bad GM. He's re-built a farm system that was non-existent under Kevin Malone, and he also picked a heck of a manager.

Anyway, someone tell Kenny to get the Dodgers off his speed dial...

RKMeibalane
02-11-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Anyway, someone tell Kenny to get the Dodgers off his speed dial...

:KW

"What's a speed dial?"

DrCrawdad
02-11-2004, 05:42 PM
Boy it must (inhale) to be Dan Evans...First he gets passed over by the Sox and then getting pushed out in LA.

jeremyb1
02-11-2004, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, if I'm a Dodger fan, I think I'd be very pleased with this turn of events. Depodesta is a smart guy, although it will be interesting to see how he deals personal side of GMing, like negotiating contracts and such (in Moneyball, he comes across like a 'quiet man behind the computer screen'). Either way, he should make a fine GM. This isn't to say Dan Evans has been a bad GM. He's re-built a farm system that was non-existent under Kevin Malone, and he also picked a heck of a manager.

Anyway, someone tell Kenny to get the Dodgers off his speed dial...

Wow. Good for Paul. I woudn't worry too much about the personal side of being GM. If necessary you can always delegate. Rick Hahn seems to negotiate a lot of deals for the Sox.

jabrch
02-11-2004, 08:42 PM
I'd say this is one step further from a deal, rather than one step closer. DePodesta has time now to turn that franchise around - rather than rush into something to save his butt like Evans would have had to do. He won't be silly enough to take PK off of our hands. He won't pay the price for Maggs - a FA next year, and the one he will want is Frank - who I really hope we don't give up unless JR/KW plan on tanking this year, trading Maggs, trading Frank, getting whatever we can for anyone one the roster and starting ALL OVER AGAIN - which I hope we don't do.

I think DePodesta will be smart enough to not make a dumb deal. I didn't think the same thing about Evans.

gosox41
02-12-2004, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I'd say this is one step further from a deal, rather than one step closer. DePodesta has time now to turn that franchise around - rather than rush into something to save his butt like Evans would have had to do. He won't be silly enough to take PK off of our hands. He won't pay the price for Maggs - a FA next year, and the one he will want is Frank - who I really hope we don't give up unless JR/KW plan on tanking this year, trading Maggs, trading Frank, getting whatever we can for anyone one the roster and starting ALL OVER AGAIN - which I hope we don't do.

I think DePodesta will be smart enough to not make a dumb deal. I didn't think the same thing about Evans.

KW gets hosed when he deals with Beane. Guess who they guy was that did all the behind the scenes work and helped find players like Bradford using his computer while the Sox were down on him because he didn't throw hard enough?

Bob

gosox41
02-12-2004, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Wow. Good for Paul. I woudn't worry too much about the personal side of being GM. If necessary you can always delegate. Rick Hahn seems to negotiate a lot of deals for the Sox.

Is it true that Rick Hahn came off sounding like a used car salesman at SoxFest? My source was telling me that on one of the question/answer sessions (maybe Sunday since she didn't mention this story when we spoke Saturday of Sox fest) he basically said something about the Sox having 2 20 games winners going in to last season (which isn't even true) and that this year the Sox have 2 20 game winners going into this season so not much has changed in terms of the quality of pitching.

Can anyone verify this?

Bob

Fungo
02-12-2004, 08:22 AM
I happened to run accross this as I was looking at Baseball America online.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/askba.html

The question was asked to rate the top 5 farm systems in all of baseball. The Dodgers system is rated as number 4. I know someone mentioned it earlier, but Danny Evans really did do a nice job rebuilding that system. Scary to see the Twins sitting at number 3. Although, take these ratings with a grain of salt, not long ago we were rated as the top farm system in all of baseball and look where it got us.

34 Inch Stick
02-12-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
KW gets hosed when he deals with Beane. Guess who they guy was that did all the behind the scenes work and helped find players like Bradford using his computer while the Sox were down on him because he didn't throw hard enough?

Bob

And Beane gave up Miguel Olivo. I'll take a starting catcher over a situational middle reliever any day. Geniuses (or is that Geniuae) are creating new matter at Fermilab not worrying about the range of a minor league shortstop.

Jjav829
02-12-2004, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Fungo
I happened to run accross this as I was looking at Baseball America online.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/columnists/askba.html

The question was asked to rate the top 5 farm systems in all of baseball. The Dodgers system is rated as number 4. I know someone mentioned it earlier, but Danny Evans really did do a nice job rebuilding that system. Scary to see the Twins sitting at number 3. Although, take these ratings with a grain of salt, not long ago we were rated as the top farm system in all of baseball and look where it got us.

Welcome Aboard! :D:

Fungo
02-12-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Welcome Aboard! :D:

Thanks, glad to be here.

boog_alou
02-12-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
And Beane gave up Miguel Olivo. I'll take a starting catcher over a situational middle reliever any day. Geniuses (or is that Geniuae) are creating new matter at Fermilab not worrying about the range of a minor league shortstop.
I'd take Bradford over Olivo any day. Once Olivo has an OPS over .700 get back to me. So far, Olivo is only potential, but has shown nothing in the majors except for a good arm. Bradford has actually produced well...for several seasons.

Iwritecode
02-12-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Is it true that Rick Hahn came off sounding like a used car salesman at SoxFest? My source was telling me that on one of the question/answer sessions (maybe Sunday since she didn't mention this story when we spoke Saturday of Sox fest) he basically said something about the Sox having 2 20 games winners going in to last season (which isn't even true) and that this year the Sox have 2 20 game winners going into this season so not much has changed in terms of the quality of pitching.

Can anyone verify this?

Bob

I can believe something like that was said.

Last year we had Colon (20-game winner), Burly (19-game winner), Garland and 2 question marks. This year we have Loaiza (20-game winner), Burly(19-game winner), Garland and 2 question marks.

The only difference is that last year, Loaiza came out of nowhere to complement Colon & Burly, yet it still wasn't enough . I don't see anyone doing that again this year.

It's faulty logic at best...

soxtalker
02-12-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
And Beane gave up Miguel Olivo. I'll take a starting catcher over a situational middle reliever any day. Geniuses (or is that Geniuae) are creating new matter at Fermilab not worrying about the range of a minor league shortstop.

Another view of the trade -- which ascribes genius to neither side -- is that the Sox really needed catching, while the A's had enough to trade away one of their top prospects at that position. Having said that, I think that it is a fair criticism of the Sox system and a credit to the A's that we did not value Bradford and they did.

Foulke You
02-12-2004, 11:36 AM
Does anyone else think that Evans getting replaced could possibly squash any Konerko/Thomas for Perez deals? (Not that this is a bad thing) I mean, isn't it Evans who had the proverbial woody to get White Sox players since he was associated with the Sox organization at one time and knows the players? What connection does this possibly new GM have to the Sox and why would he want to deal with us?

gosox41
02-12-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
And Beane gave up Miguel Olivo. I'll take a starting catcher over a situational middle reliever any day. Geniuses (or is that Geniuae) are creating new matter at Fermilab not worrying about the range of a minor league shortstop.

Olivo has potential, but a .287 OBP isn't anything to get excited about. Besides ask your self this. The Sox have been trying to win the division the last 3 years. If the Sox had Foulke and Bradford all last season instead of Koch an Olivo do you think this team would have made the playoffs?

I don't consider the Olivo trade a bad trade like the Koch trade. In fact it was a good risk. But let's not toot our horns too much until Olivo shows he can be a productive everyday player. Right now he's long on potential, anyone can see that. But I've seen a ton of players with a lot of potential underacheive. Let's hope Olivo isn't one of them.

Bob

34 Inch Stick
02-13-2004, 08:32 AM
He was brought up here a year earlier than he should have been but came on in the second half offensively. Defensively he is already one of the top arms in the game and appeared to be a very solid game caller. He is not there yet but you can see more than just potential in him. I fully expect him to hit above .270 with double digit HR and double totals and a decent OBP. I will even predict double digit steals from him this year.

Unfortuneately Koch was going to be here regardless of Bradford because we needed a "closer."

I don't think we disagree on this. I am just fatigued by the use of "genius" attached to the average intellects in administration of baseball (with some exceptions of course).

jabrch
02-13-2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
I don't think we disagree on this. I am just fatigued by the use of "genius" attached to the average intellects in administration of baseball (with some exceptions of course).

I agree with you 34. In 3 years we can evaluate the legendary moneyball draft and see how good they did with 7 first round picks. So far - it looks like they took a lot of picks and got a lot of questionmarks. Out of those 7, how many will be impact players? My guess is not enough to qualify them as geniouses.

soxtalker
02-13-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I agree with you 34. In 3 years we can evaluate the legendary moneyball draft and see how good they did with 7 first round picks. So far - it looks like they took a lot of picks and got a lot of questionmarks. Out of those 7, how many will be impact players? My guess is not enough to qualify them as geniouses.

When you talk about looking for "impact players", you may be evaluating players by a different standard than Beane and his moneyball philosophy use. When I read the book, I had the impression that he was looking at ways of adding production on the margin. He might, for example, give up a higher-cost player (i.e., one valued by most other teams for his "conventional" stats) for two or three other players that can produce the combined stats that Beane values. So, there are two things at play here. First, Beane focuses on non-conventional stats. Second, he looks at the overall statistics of the line-up. So, an individual player doesn't have to have tremendous impact.

jabrch
02-13-2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by soxtalker
When you talk about looking for "impact players", you may be evaluating players by a different standard than Beane and his moneyball philosophy use. When I read the book, I had the impression that he was looking at ways of adding production on the margin. He might, for example, give up a higher-cost player (i.e., one valued by most other teams for his "conventional" stats) for two or three other players that can produce the combined stats that Beane values. So, there are two things at play here. First, Beane focuses on non-conventional stats. Second, he looks at the overall statistics of the line-up. So, an individual player doesn't have to have tremendous impact.

Right - but at the end of the day you still need to have impact players to win. You can make up for Giambi or for Tejada, or for Damon or for Chavez - as Beane indicated in the book. But you can not be plugging holes at EVERY position. Also you should be plugging holes via FA and trades, not the draft. The draft is your best chance to get top talent that you have committed to your organization for an extended period of time at a reasonable price. If Beane took 7 players in the first round and only Swisher ends up better than Jeremy Giambi or Matt Stairs, that team will not win. A team with 8 Matt Stairs will not win.

Beane had a point - to a certain extent. But you can not take that point and extend it all the way out to an entire team.

gosox41
02-14-2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
When you talk about looking for "impact players", you may be evaluating players by a different standard than Beane and his moneyball philosophy use. When I read the book, I had the impression that he was looking at ways of adding production on the margin. He might, for example, give up a higher-cost player (i.e., one valued by most other teams for his "conventional" stats) for two or three other players that can produce the combined stats that Beane values. So, there are two things at play here. First, Beane focuses on non-conventional stats. Second, he looks at the overall statistics of the line-up. So, an individual player doesn't have to have tremendous impact.

If Beane had more then a $9 mill. budget for that draft I'm sure he would have drafted differently.

Soxtalker, at least you realize this..

Bob

soxtalker
02-14-2004, 12:17 PM
It will be interesting to see what Beane will do if/when he does have a bigger budget. There were reports that the new Dodger owner had wanted to hire him, but that the A's wouldn't allow an interview. I have no doubts that he will use the extra dollars in acquiring players both through the draft and FA, but I suspect that he'll retain much of the same philosophy.

Beane has been pretty successful at achieving a string of winning seasons, though I'm not sure if it has been over a long enough period to claim that it is due to his philosophy and not specific players. It is also interesting that he hasn't done particularly well in the play-offs. Now, teams attack the game differently in the play-offs than during the regular season. For example, they will often use a star starting pitcher more frequently or in relief. So this may be where the value of an "impact player" is really felt, and it may point to a weakness in the approach that Beane uses.

34 Inch Stick
02-14-2004, 12:30 PM
There are three reasons Beane has had success- Mulder, Hudson and Zito.

I heard Beane and Phil Jackson are quitting their jobs and are going to join the effort to put men on Mars. The ETA to get there has now decresed from 20 years to 5. Genius!!!!

kempsted
02-15-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
There are three reasons Beane has had success- Mulder, Hudson and Zito.

I heard Beane and Phil Jackson are quitting their jobs and are going to join the effort to put men on Mars. The ETA to get there has now decresed from 20 years to 5. Genius!!!!
Hmmm - Your theory on Beane success would work except - no one but him wanted Zito. Hudson also was undervalued. (Mulder everyone would have taken).

BTW what exactly did the Bulls win with MJ before Phil Jackson came.... oh yeah nothing.

SEALgep
02-15-2004, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by kempsted
Hmmm - Your theory on Beane success would work except - no one but him wanted Zito. Hudson also was undervalued. (Mulder everyone would have taken).

BTW what exactly did the Bulls win with MJ before Phil Jackson came.... oh yeah nothing. Timing is everything.