PDA

View Full Version : HE SAID WHAT? (Sheehan this time crys about Theo/Depo)


jabrch
11-05-2005, 03:36 PM
In a three-day span, two of the youngest general managers in the game, each with performance-analysis credentials and varying degrees of success during their tenures, were no longer employed.

And both franchises will eventually be better off for it after they can get out from under the terrible moves those GMs have made the past 3 years. It's the dirty little secret that nobody has talked about, but Theo's signings AFTER winning the WS in 2004 were TERRIBLE. David Wells is being overpaid for the risk associated with him. Clement was a terrible deal - he is not durable, and can't pitch well consistently in the second half. He way overpaid Varitek, compared to what he could have gotten AJ or a Molina for. That's a bad deal that will get worse over the next two years. The Edgar Renteria signing was an AWFUL move. If you take 2002 and 2003 out of the picture, his remaining 8 years in his career have been decent, but not spectacular. He's 30 years old - and will be theirs for a lot of money for a while longer. They weren't in a great spot even before his goofs, relative to where a 150mm payroll should be. Manny takes up 20mm, but at least he delivers - until they are forced to trade him and eat a chunk of that deal. And Schilling, signed in 2003, is overpaid relative to what he can produce. They really are in a bad spot for a team with a 150mm payroll. Imagine KW with $150mm?
The Dodgers' Paul DePodesta was fired last week,


For ruining a playoff team and turning it into a sub-.500 team overnight.

and the Red Sox' Theo Epstein declined to resign on Monday, despite nearly reaching agreement on a three-year contract extension.


No - he didn't "nearly" reach agreement. You fell for bullpoo reported by people who know nothing about the actual situation.

Together, the two GMs helmed four playoff teams,

Not really - how much credit are you giving them for the teams they picked up from Duquette and Evans that had everything together? As an statistical analyst, you should evaluate what they did - not what they inherited. Theo got David Ortiz for nothing. That was a great move. Past that, there is not a single move made by either of these GMs that would rank amongst the top 10 moves made in baseball in the past 4 years.

and 1½ division champions

1/2 a division champion? That's news to me. I guess baseball suddenly awards half pennants? I didn't see MLB.COM selling the 1/2 Division Champs Hats. Do they get half a ring? How about half a brain Joe - cuz that's what you indicate you have with crap like this.

and one poorly-publicized World Series

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is the dumbest line I have heard from you yet Joe - and it has much competition. The Red Sox "breaking the curse" was one of the most publicized sports stories in my LIFETIME. You are an idiot.

Considering that the baseball industry tolerates extended runs of failure or mediocrity in many quarters, this kind of turnover in the face of success is stunning.


Depodesta had no success. His reign was a total failure, strapping the franchise to bad contracts, and trading away valuable pieces for less than market value. Theo's success came from 3 areas, first, a 150mm payroll. Second, a team already blessed with a core of great players before he got there, and three, a great move on his part to get Ortiz. But look at the team now, now that he has had a while to be there. The 2006 Red Sox are not going to be a favorite, despite a 150mm payroll. Their pitching is terrible, relative to the cost that it carries. And their pen in in shambles.
As Epstein indicated in yesterday's news conference, there was no one reason for his decision to leave the Sox, but an accumulation of reasons that left him unable to do the job the way he wanted to do it.

Yes, he realized that what he has done so far had stuck the franchise in a bad spot for the future. Schilling has a huge contract, and is overpaid. Manny wants out - and they won't be able to get fair value for him without eating much of that contract. The pen is ruined. The farm is thin. They need a 1B, a 2B, a 3B, a CF and a RF. Yes, Theo realized he could no longer do his job - since he sold out for the one year, at the expense of the future.

I think it's fair to lay a significant part of the blame at the feet of Larry Lucchino


We know you do Joe, and that's not surprising to me. You blame anyone except those to whom you worship. Just once, I want to see you hold one of your boys responsible for their own poor performance. $150mm payroll - and the Red Sox have more holes than any of the other playoff teams this year. Theo blew it. Dodgers had a playoff team that Evans left for Depo - and he turned them into a sub .500 team. Where's your statistical analyis of this Joe?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4585 (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4585)

NWSox
11-05-2005, 04:27 PM
This post touches on two things that have been annoying me a lot lately - the whole Theo as Hamlet saga and Joe Sheehan. My initial reaction to the Theo saga was curiosity over the office politics things, but after hearing his press conference and reading more about it, this is pure Theo egomania. This guy has everyone believing that he's courageous, when what he really is a narcissistic spoiled brat. Please go away Theo. You weren't the architect of the World Champion Red Sox and you're not going to be the savior of any other franchise. Go do social work with your brother and spare the rest of us from the Woe are the Red Sox news coverage.

I went back and reread Sheehan predictions for the AL Central and this guy was wrong to point of being comical. Everything he wrote was horribly wrong. But the worst thing is that I have to listen to Sheehan apologists who claim 1) that he's the most objective baseball analyst around and 2) he admitted that he was wrong about the White Sox. If you read his predictions, you can tell he's obviously not objective. And he had no choice but to admit he was wrong about the Sox. The problem with Sheehan, as your post points out, is that he will again discount what the Sox have done and go with his Moneyball biases again next year (and take credit again for admitting he was wrong a second time).

Whether you are a Moneyball fan or not, KW has completely shattered the myth about these young GMs. There is no substitute for hard work, a lifetime of baseball knowledge, patience, and confidence in your instincts. People like McCourt and Lucchino should be applauded for reminding everyone that respect is earned over a career, not just because you have a fancy degree.

Banix12
11-05-2005, 05:11 PM
I went back and reread Sheehan predictions for the AL Central and this guy was wrong to point of being comical. Everything he wrote was horribly wrong. But the worst thing is that I have to listen to Sheehan apologists who claim 1) that he's the most objective baseball analyst around and 2) he admitted that he was wrong about the White Sox. If you read his predictions, you can tell he's obviously not objective. And he had no choice but to admit he was wrong about the Sox. The problem with Sheehan, as your post points out, is that he will again discount what the Sox have done and go with his Moneyball biases again next year (and take credit again for admitting he was wrong a second time).

That one always makes me laugh. He owes his whole livelyhood to writing about Sabremetrics and how it is the way to build championships. Anything that goes against that concept immediately gets blasted.

There are far more objective analysts than him, even other SABR analysts like Neyer are a million times more objective than he is. The SABR theory is still largely incomplete and filled with gaps, some analysts can accept that, Sheehan refuses to.

MRKARNO
11-05-2005, 05:42 PM
Whether you are a Moneyball fan or not, KW has completely shattered the myth about these young GMs. There is no substitute for hard work, a lifetime of baseball knowledge, patience, and confidence in your instincts. People like McCourt and Lucchino should be applauded for reminding everyone that respect is earned over a career, not just because you have a fancy degree.

:?:

Kenny Willaims isn't exactly an "old" GM. He was 36 when he was given the job and had been working for the White Sox front office in a high level job for some years before that. Also, Kenny Williams went to Stanford. He didn't finish his degree because he got drafted, but he went there for about 3 years I believe and Stanford is one of the top schools in the country. If anything, Kenny Williams' job validates the notion that one doesnt have to be an older GM to be a successful GM. Additionally, with Ozzie Gullen managing the team to the World Series, it also validates the claim that younger managers can do as well as older managers. If you take out the philisophical aspect, you'd probably find that Kenny Williams has a lot in common with some of the younger GMs in baseball.

NWSox
11-05-2005, 07:39 PM
:?:

Kenny Willaims isn't exactly an "old" GM. He was 36 when he was given the job and had been working for the White Sox front office in a high level job for some years before that. Also, Kenny Williams went to Stanford. He didn't finish his degree because he got drafted, but he went there for about 3 years I believe and Stanford is one of the top schools in the country. If anything, Kenny Williams' job validates the notion that one doesnt have to be an older GM to be a successful GM. Additionally, with Ozzie Gullen managing the team to the World Series, it also validates the claim that younger managers can do as well as older managers. If you take out the philisophical aspect, you'd probably find that Kenny Williams has a lot in common with some of the younger GMs in baseball.

I don't think we disagree. I think of KW differently than the current group of young GMs (at least KW is in his 40s). KW has been in baseball for over 20 years and, in addition to playing in the majors, worked his way up through the organization after his playing days. He was in charge of player development prior to becoming GM. His base of experience is much different than that of Epstein or DePodesta. That's why KW understands chemistry issues better than DePo, and could appreciate Ozzie's desire to play a different style of baseball when the Moneyball GMs would have dismissed it. Even though KW does have a Stanford background, he has earned respect through his baseball work.

jabrch
11-06-2005, 09:11 AM
If anything, Kenny Williams' job validates the notion that one doesnt have to be an older GM to be a successful GM.

I missed all the articles and comments equating young with incompetent. Nobody's problem with the young GMs has anything to do with AGE - it is with methodology and knowledge of the interworkings of the game. KW has been involved in pro-baseball for longer than some of our posters have been alive. That's enough for me.

Additionally, with Ozzie Gullen managing the team to the World Series, it also validates the claim that younger managers can do as well as older managers.

See above - it's not age - it's skillset.

If you take out the philisophical aspect, you'd probably find that Kenny Williams has a lot in common with some of the younger GMs in baseball.


I'm not sure I know what you are talking about here. If by "younger GMs" you are talking about the Theo/Depo/Beane crowd, KW has nothing in common with them except the fact that he is educated. His methodology and approach (the things I most care about in a GM) are very different.

KW brings a combination of all the right skills to the job, including 20 years in professional baseball, a great knowledge of the game, fantastic relationships with the people in the game, and the ability to evaluate and select talent.

ma-gaga
11-06-2005, 08:55 PM
KW brings a combination of all the right skills to the job, including 20 years in professional baseball, a great knowledge of the game, fantastic relationships with the people in the game, and the ability to evaluate and select talent.

He also got lucky that he:
a.) didn't burn any bridges with any of the "living legends".
b.) had an owner that gave him 5 years.
c.) learned from his mistakes.

Sheehan bashing aside, I think DePodesta got screwed. Maybe he deserved getting fired, but I don't know. I'm not a big Dodger fan. It still seems silly to hire a GM and give him less than 2 years on the job.

jabrch
11-07-2005, 10:01 PM
It still seems silly to hire a GM and give him less than 2 years on the job.

When the team is worse after two years than when you got there, you deserve to get fired.

Optipessimism
11-07-2005, 10:26 PM
David Wells is being overpaid for the risk associated with him.

I didn't think the Wells move was that great, but he did provide the best perfomance of their starters in the ALCS (which of course isn't saying much).

Clement was a terrible deal - he is not durable, and can't pitch well consistently in the second half.

People here and everywhere were eager to sign Clement, and we almost did. Hindsight is 20/20, and had he not gotten hit could have been an entirely different pitcher in the second half.

He way overpaid Varitek, compared to what he could have gotten AJ or a Molina for. That's a bad deal that will get worse over the next two years. The Edgar Renteria signing was an AWFUL move.

Varitek was their PK or Big Frank. Besides being a PR move, he can handle the bat and a pitching staff. Nothing wrong with that move.

Renteria turned out bad, but if you had the money to spend at the time, would you have really passed that up? Cabrera was already gone IIRC, and who else would you want? Nomore? Ugh.

Imagine KW with $150mm?

KW is known for his smaller moves paying off. If KW had a 150M payroll, he'd still make some small moves, but he'd make a lot of big moves too. And some of them would hurt us as large contracts are prone to do.


For ruining a playoff team and turning it into a sub-.500 team overnight.

That team had no pitching. Pedro was gone, Schilling was hurt, Lowe was gone, and who else was there? Pavano? Milton? Loaiza? They could have went after Randy Johnson, but look how that turned out. Millwood was available, but nobody thought he would turn out the season that he did.

MRKARNO
11-07-2005, 10:31 PM
When the team is worse after two years than when you got there, you deserve to get fired.

When KW inherited the team, the team was coming off of a 95 win season. The White Sox then proceeded to finish near .500 for four straight years, mounting only one challenge for the playoffs in 2003. In 2005, he assembled the World Series championship winning team. If KW was held by the same standard, he would have been long gone, but as I said before, GMs deserve some time and KW deserved to have some missteps along the way, just as DePo did. DePo had a lot of injuries to deal with this past season that were really not his fault, as far as we know. If you take the sabermetric aspect out of it all and you look at the question of, "Did he get a fair shot compared to other GMs?" the answer is clearly no.

Deuce
11-07-2005, 10:35 PM
Originally Posted by jabrch
For ruining a playoff team and turning it into a sub-.500 team overnight.

That team had no pitching. Pedro was gone, Schilling was hurt, Lowe was gone, and who else was there? Pavano? Milton? Loaiza? They could have went after Randy Johnson, but look how that turned out. Millwood was available, but nobody thought he would turn out the season that he did.
Um, he was talking about the Dodgers' Paul DePodesta there, not the Wrong Sox.

Deuce
11-07-2005, 10:51 PM
Sheehan bashing aside, I think DePodesta got screwed. Maybe he deserved getting fired, but I don't know. I'm not a big Dodger fan. It still seems silly to hire a GM and give him less than 2 years on the job.
The guy I feel bad for is Jim Tracy, who got pitched from a job he loved because of that idiot DePo's mistakes. He busted his ass to make a winning team out of those guys and in two short years, Depo ****s everything up royally. Littlefield should count himself lucky to have Tracy as his manager. With Tracy, I got a feeling the Pirates are going to come out big in 2006.

Deuce

jabrch
11-07-2005, 11:08 PM
When KW inherited the team, the team was coming off of a 95 win season. The White Sox then proceeded to finish near .500 for four straight years, mounting only one challenge for the playoffs in 2003. In 2005, he assembled the World Series championship winning team. If KW was held by the same standard, he would have been long gone, but as I said before, GMs deserve some time and KW deserved to have some missteps along the way, just as DePo did. DePo had a lot of injuries to deal with this past season that were really not his fault, as far as we know. If you take the sabermetric aspect out of it all and you look at the question of, "Did he get a fair shot compared to other GMs?" the answer is clearly no.

Totally different story - and we have been through this many times. The team KW inherited had disasterously poor health of its pitching staff. In KWs first year, 9 guys had 10 starts or more - all of the talent he inherited. All of this with a moderately low payroll, and he managed to hang in there.

Depodesta made bad moves on top of bad signings, on top of worse moves. He took a team with a near 100mm payroll and ruined it.

You have to evaluate each guy based on the situation they had. Depodesta was a disaster. He destroyed the team Evans built, and handcuffed them to some very bad deals.

AZChiSoxFan
11-08-2005, 08:42 AM
Sheehan bashing aside, I think DePodesta got screwed. Maybe he deserved getting fired, but I don't know. I'm not a big Dodger fan. It still seems silly to hire a GM and give him less than 2 years on the job.

On a purely theoretical level, I would agree with you. In this case however, firing the incompetent DePodesta was clearly the right thing to do. Imagine how totally awful the Dodgers would be if they had kept DePodesta around another 3 years.

Flight #24
11-08-2005, 09:16 AM
[font=Verdana]

That team had no pitching. Pedro was gone, Schilling was hurt, Lowe was gone, and who else was there? Pavano? Milton? Loaiza? They could have went after Randy Johnson, but look how that turned out. Millwood was available, but nobody thought he would turn out the season that he did.





Pedro & Lowe left because they let them go. They surely could have resigned them and then say maybe gone after David Eckstein instead of Renteria and been net a large positive. Those are decisions made by the GM and he should be accountable for them.

And yes, KW looked at some of the same guys the BoSox did. Had he signed them and it turned out bad, he'd have to answer for it. But to his credit, he didn't keep upping the bidding on guys like Clement.

FarWestChicago
11-08-2005, 10:26 PM
Sheehan bashing aside, I think DePodesta got screwed. Maybe he deserved getting fired, but I don't know. I'm not a big Dodger fan. It still seems silly to hire a GM and give him less than 2 years on the job.He deserved getting whacked. He was a disaster looking for a location.

ma-gaga
11-09-2005, 11:02 AM
He deserved getting whacked. He was a disaster looking for a location.

Well, ok. I'm a "numbers guy", and on the surface it looks like he got dumped because he didn't suck up to Lasordsa, which seems like a really dumb reason to make a decision. Depodesta looks like too much brain and not enough salesman.

This bugged me a bit, so I poked around a bit on the internet, and I found TOMMY LASORDA'S CONFESSION (http://www.yard-work.org/?cat=79). I knew it!!!


The season ended badly for the Dodgers over a month ago, but I’ve been keeping busy. You don’t stop doing a job just because you’re fired. As an official advisor to the chairman for the Dodgers, I’ve been bending Frank McCourt’s ear all season, trying to keep him from making even more mistakes, especially since that know-nothing GM Paul DePasta never returned my phone calls. I would’ve told him that Paul LoDuca is worth 15 J.D. Drews, and that they should have kept Jeff Kent’s bad attitude away from this great city! But he wouldn’t listen to me because he’s got some fancy degree, and the Dodgers were left with one of the worst teams in baseball.

And then McCourt listened to DePodestro and fired Jim Tracy, the one guy left on the team that bled Dodger Blue when he wasn’t losing. I mean, he wasn’t Walter Alston, but who is? I’m not even Walter Alston (though I’m pretty close). Heck, Walter Alston isn’t even Walter Alston anymore! That was the last camel’s straw I wanted to see broken, Tracy’s firing. Drastic times call for drastic measures, so I went on the offensive. I went on a mission to save LA baseball!

I went to work right after DePodsednik went on vacation. Really, who goes on vacation when you’ve got a baseball team to manage? That’s a sign right there that he’s not all right up in his head. First, I hired a bunch of hackers to break into Paul’s e-mail account and spam everyone in the Dodger organization with e-mails from Nigerian businessmen and software salesman and pharmecutical companies and eBay account verifiers, all with Paul’s e-mail address prominently featured. (I got the idea from Billy Plaschke - he’s a great guy, and a fantastic writer. If I were head of the Writer’s Hall of Fame, he’d be first ballot every year, and twice on leap years!)

Then I prankcalled Frank McCourt’s wife as Paul and talked dirty to her.
...


:cool:

ma-gaga
11-09-2005, 11:58 AM
Wow. I stumbled upon another FANTASTIC site, who had this to say:


Really, There's only one solution that makes sense at this point. Three simple steps:
1. Give Plaschke the GM job.
2. Give DePodesta a daily column in the LAT.
3. Buy popcorn.



:gulp: :gulp:

samram
11-09-2005, 12:23 PM
He also got lucky that he:
a.) didn't burn any bridges with any of the "living legends".
b.) had an owner that gave him 5 years.
c.) learned from his mistakes.

Sheehan bashing aside, I think DePodesta got screwed. Maybe he deserved getting fired, but I don't know. I'm not a big Dodger fan. It still seems silly to hire a GM and give him less than 2 years on the job.

The problem DePo had is the team had gone from a solid, division leader with the best bullpen in baseball, to a sub-.500 mess. The 2004 Dodgers were better than the 2000 White Sox, if it's necessary to make the KW comparison. Furthermore, KW didn't trade key parts from the 2000 Sox (except for Sirotka, but he got Wells, which most probably thought was a move toward a WS). DePo traded an All-Star catcher and a terrific set-up man for unproven players in the middle of a pennant push- a move, IMO, that was made so he could demostrate his intellect and his intention to move the Dodgers into a new era of stats-analysis. When, after two years, the team is so much worse than it was when the GM took over, the team really doesn't have a choice but to make a change to stop the bleeding. I can maybe buy that KW got a fairer chance than did DePodesta, but that doesn't mean that DePodesta was screwed over.

jabrch
11-09-2005, 06:41 PM
This bugged me a bit, so I poked around a bit on the internet, and I found TOMMY LASORDA'S CONFESSION (http://www.yard-work.org/?cat=79). I knew it!!!





You really should have put that in teal. That's not fair to Lasorda. Tommy's blog, http://tommy.mlblogs.com/, doesn't have anything like that. My guess is that the piece you attributed to Tommy is written by some moron with a website, not one of the greatest ambassadors to the game.

I'm sure Lasorda did work with McCourt and contributed to getting Depodesta fired. But that's cuz Depo ruined the Dodgers in two short years.

ma-gaga
11-09-2005, 11:15 PM
You really should have put that in teal. That's not fair to Lasorda. Tommy's blog, http://tommy.mlblogs.com/, doesn't have anything like that.

Are you serious?

The picture didn't tip you off?? http://www.yard-work.org/pix/lasorda_oops.jpg

Fine. Amazingly enough, Ozzie Guillen http://www.thetimesonline.com/content/articles/2005/04/05/news/top_news/2a00c9b28218950786256fda00090b63.jpg has a blog at that website as well! Here it is! (http://www.yard-work.org/?cat=179)

A lot of people email me to ask me why I manage the way I do. Man, if I answered every single email, I’d never get any managing done around here! But I try, because the fans are the third most important thing in baseball. The second is the game. The first is winning.

I have to be honest, or else I will be a liar. And no one ever called Ozzie Guillen a liar. They’ve called me a lot of stuff. They’ve called me pendejo. They’ve called me a racist. They’ve called me a homo-hater. They’ve called me crazy, loco, insane in the membrane. But you know what? Ozzie’s just gotta be Ozzie. That’s what got me through my long career: playing with guts and heart, swinging at balls over my head, doing what it took to try to win. And that’s how I got where I’m at today: the manager of the Chicago White Sox, the team that’s playing for the chance to be in the World Series.

Hey, if we stink it up, I’m gonna tell you, “Man, we stunk.” If we play so bad I want to vomit, I’ll vomit right in front of you, I don’t care. If I wanna drop an f-bomb, then you better wear your kevlar jockstrap, because you’re gonna catch some f-shrapnel right in your f-crotch. They don’t call me Crazy Ozzie for nothing! Hell, Crazy Ozzie calls himself Crazy Ozzie!
...

Hey. The Rally Monkey has a blog, http://worldoflongmire.com/dailycomment/rallymonkey2.jpg HERE! (http://www.yard-work.org/?cat=182)

Lighten up. It was a joke.

I did spend an obnoxious amount of time today looking at a bunch of blogger Dodger sites to see what their reaction was. Obviously, the stathead sites didn't like it a lot.

They openly wonder about what kind of message the owner is sending.
Then they rip the owner for cowtowing to the media, and in particular Bill Plashke from the LA Times, whose next nice words about Depodesta will be his first.
Then they started going thru Tommy Lasorda's record as a GM. Ever wonder where Paul Konerko came from? Tommy! (http://www.dodgerblues.com/content/features_trades.html#shaw)
Guess who traded away Pedro Martinez in 1993??? TOMMY!!! (http://www.dodgerblues.com/content/features_trades.html#pedro)

So like I've said before. I'm not a big Dodger fan, and DePodesta has a dubious record as a GM. But it looks like he get fired because he didn't suck up to Lasorda.

And that is a crappy reason.

jabrch
11-09-2005, 11:33 PM
But it looks like he get fired because he didn't suck up to Lasorda.

And that is a crappy reason.


Had he won - and got fired, then you could say that. But he took a winning team, turned into crap, saddled it with bad contracts, and did a real poor job of interfacing the the LA media or public.

That's actually a damn good reason to fire him.

Oh, and if you want to compare what Tommy has done for the Dodgers to what Depodesta did, go ahead. List off all of Depodesta's accomplishments, then let me know when you are done.

Lasorda has forgotten more about this game than Depodesta knows.

MRKARNO
11-09-2005, 11:58 PM
Had he won - and got fired, then you could say that. But he took a winning team, turned into crap, saddled it with bad contracts, and did a real poor job of interfacing the the LA media or public.


Seriously, he made a lot of terrible decisions like letting Beltre and Finley go. Big mistakes.

He brought in Jeff Kent, which turned out to be a great move.

I can't blame him for 3/24 for Odalis Perez. That's Kris Benson money. All pitchers were getting ridiculous contract. Perez, admittedly sucked last year, but there's no saying that he won't rebound next year, and he had an injury which was out of DePo's control. Perez had been fairly healthy up til then.

He got Dioner Navarro out of Shawn Green, which is looking like a fine move.

The Derek Lowe contract was awful, 4/36, but Derek Lowe went a long way towards justifying it last year, posting solid numbers.

Giving JD Drew that much money was likely also a mistake, but when he's healthy, he's pretty damn good.

And you also can't blame him for a lot of the pitching injuries that happened, such as the Gagne injury.

He did not have a great first two years by any stretch of the imagination. On the whole, they were mediocre to bad, but I don't think he "drove the team into the ground," which is about the only firable offense after two years. He got the team into trouble, so let him have a year to wiggle out of it. If he doesnt, then he's had three years and you throw him out the door. If you're going to hire a GM, you must give them a chance to do their bidding. In the long run, stability can benefit a team more than constant chaos and GM hirings.

Whatever they do, they just have to find someone that they are committed to before they cement their place as the second class team in the LA area. They are quickly becoming the Mets of the West Coast. If McCourt keeps allowing Bill Plaschke to make his decisions for him, he's going to have a devalued franchise on his hands.

jabrch
11-10-2005, 06:54 AM
When McCourt realized that Depodesta was not able to build relationships with other GMs that were leverageable, this, coupled with his failures of the past two years, led McCourt to realize that hiring Depodesta in the first place was a wrong move. He COULD have given him one more year, but he didn't. He did what was best for the franchise and dumped him before it was too late.

Depodesta strapped that team to some pretty bad contracts. He traded away his team's version of Jason Varitek and got very little in return. He has yet to make a move that has put the Dodgers on any long term path to success.

Oh, and by the way, do you really think Jeff Kent was a great move? I think adding dickbags like Kent and Bradley to their clubhouse has made it a worse place, and will make it undesireable for FAs. Now he has to unload Bradley, but he has a unlikable Kent lying around. Sure - good numbers, but what has Jeff Kent ever won? He is a true clubhouse problem. How did that fit into Depodesta's spreadsheet?

jabrch
11-10-2005, 07:06 AM
And he did "drive them into the ground". That team was 71-94 in the worst division in baseball. Despite a huge payroll, their OF sucks. (Werth, Repko, Cruz Jr. and Drew). They have no dominant players anywhere. Their defense is bad. They have no #1 or #2 in that rotation. And they are committed to about $50mm in salary for 5 players (Drew, Gagne, Penny, Perez and Kent).


How, objectively speaking, is this not driving a team into the ground? This team won 93 games the year before that (93, 85, 92, 86 and 86 in the 5 years prior and only 1 sub .500 season in the 12 years prior) and had an 85mm payroll. It had a history of winning. And Depodesta got 71 wins in the NL west.

samram
11-10-2005, 09:44 AM
Let's also remember that the Dodgers have always been known for their great scouting system and talent evaluation. DePodesta was trying to completely change that state of mind and they just weren't going to have a lot of patience with him.

Flight #24
11-10-2005, 09:53 AM
He did not have a great first two years by any stretch of the imagination. On the whole, they were mediocre to bad, but I don't think he "drove the team into the ground," which is about the only firable offense after two years. He got the team into trouble, so let him have a year to wiggle out of it. If he doesnt, then he's had three years and you throw him out the door. If you're going to hire a GM, you must give them a chance to do their bidding. In the long run, stability can benefit a team more than constant chaos and GM hirings.



The question is - did Depo learn anything from his mistakes? If I as an owner am considering exactly what you suggest (which seems reasonable), the key is if you get a sense from the GM that he recognizes what he needs to do and what he's done poorly. Otherwise you're just diggin the hole even deeper.

I don't for a second pretend to know Paul DePodesta, but if he's got any of the arrogance of Beane & the BP Beanophiles, I wouldn't at all be surprised if when asked about his performance, Paul responded "What? We had a great OBP. We had a great run differential. It's not my fault MLB ranks teams on ridiculously archaic stats like 'Wins'."

Obviously, I'm being facetious. You can argue that that he didn't get enough time, and that turns more into a philosophical discussion about firing ANY GM 2 years in. But the "Great GM gets unfairly canned" argument parroted by BP has no basis in fact.

ma-gaga
11-10-2005, 12:12 PM
The question is - did Depo learn anything from his mistakes? If I as an owner am considering exactly what you suggest (which seems reasonable), the key is if you get a sense from the GM that he recognizes what he needs to do and what he's done poorly


Your point is dead on, and we'll NEVER know what kind of discussions were had between the two. The rumor is that McCourts was pushing DePodesta to consider "a great baseball mind" and "Dodger great" to be their manager. Specifically, Orel Hershiser. The rumor is that DePodesta refused to even interview Orel. And that DePodesta had his own idea on what type of manager to hire, and didn't want anyone that managed to "the book". If DePodesta completely ignored the wishes of the owner, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED IMMEDIATELY.

That was likely his fatal undoing. But I think the owner was pushed around be the media, and Tommy Lasorda.

There's some good reading on this subject. Specifically Dodger Blues (http://www.dodgerblues.com/content/news.html)has some good discussion on this encompassing both sides:

November 5, 2005
The bawl over Paul

http://www.dodgerblues.com/images/praising_paul_sm.jpgWithin a few days of Paul DePodesta's firing, two things became clear: (1) No one wants to be the guy to replace him, and (2) a lot of people wanted to have sex with him.

Let's start with number one. The general manager job is open in one of baseball's most storied franchises, and no one seems interested. Pat Gillick chose Philly. Gerry Hunsicker chose Tampa Bay. Kevin Towers chose to stay in San Diego. And John Hart, who the Dodgers are luring, is apparently thinking twice about the opportunity. You can't blame any of them. What was once a dream job in baseball circles has become the summer job at Arby's that you fall back on when you can't find anything else. People once lined up for interviews with the Dodgers. Now people change their phone numbers so no one from the Dodgers can call them. Poor Kim Ng has nowhere to hide.

Now onto number two. It's already been well-established that the McCourts are insane and fired DePodesta largely because they couldn't handle the media pressure. We're not going to dwell on that. What we want to talk about is the fan reaction to the firing. More than anything, the firing revealed the dichotomy that's emerged in baseball: that of traditionalists vs. statisticians. When DePodesta was fired, it wasn't just Dodger fans who were upset. In fact, those who were the most upset weren't even Dodger fans at all—they were fans of Sabermetrics. DePodesta was one of their heroes. The firing was a kick in the balls to each and every one of them. And they fought back. They bitched, they argued, and they wrote—and because they're generally intelligent people, they wrote a lot. And because they're so goddamn full of themselves, they wrote about how the average baseball fan just doesn't understand the genius of the Sabermetrics approach. What's amazing is that more and more people seem to be jumping on this Billy Beane bandwagon. What's depressing is that—at least in our opinion—they're jumping on it not because they truly believe in it, but because it's the "in" thing. The iPod nano... ringtones... Sabermetrics.
...


There's more, but the other ones I've read were very skewed towards the SABR side (6-4-2 (http://6-4-2.blogspot.com/2005/10/still-more-on-depodesta-firing.html), and Dodger Thoughts (http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/)).

:gulp:

getonbckthr
11-11-2005, 01:56 AM
Not only did Depodesta take a solid Dodger team and turn them into a sub 500 team, but it was in the worst division in baseball history.

Tragg
11-11-2005, 07:47 AM
Seriously, he made a lot of terrible decisions like letting Beltre and Finley go. Big mistakes.

He brought in Jeff Kent, which turned out to be a great move.

I can't blame him for 3/24 for Odalis Perez. That's Kris Benson money. All pitchers were getting ridiculous contract. Perez, admittedly sucked last year, but there's no saying that he won't rebound next year, and he had an injury which was out of DePo's control. Perez had been fairly healthy up til then.

He got Dioner Navarro out of Shawn Green, which is looking like a fine move.

The Derek Lowe contract was awful, 4/36, but Derek Lowe went a long way towards justifying it last year, posting solid numbers.

Giving JD Drew that much money was likely also a mistake, but when he's healthy, he's pretty damn good.

And you also can't blame him for a lot of the pitching injuries that happened, such as the Gagne injury.


Kent is a stat watchers dream, but putting him on a team with another malcontent, Bradley, is a questionable move.
He didn't let beltre go - he made a large offer, but was outbid.
He didn't address his thin bullpen (a common achilles heel of Beane-ball GMs).

He didn't "deserve" to get fired, but it's hardly any huge injustice - people get fired for no reason at all every day; and in his case, he did post 71 wins, which is worse than 71 wins because he got a schedule loaded with teams from the worst division in baseball history.
And it wasn't near the injustice of Dan Evans getting fired; or Jim Tracy getting fired.

Flight #24
11-11-2005, 09:09 AM
Kent is a stat watchers dream, but putting him on a team with another malcontent, Bradley, is a questionable move.
He didn't let beltre go - he made a large offer, but was outbid.
He didn't address his thin bullpen (a common achilles heel of Beane-ball GMs).

He didn't "deserve" to get fired, but it's hardly any huge injustice - people get fired for no reason at all every day; and in his case, he did post 71 wins, which is worse than 71 wins because he got a schedule loaded with teams from the worst division in baseball history.
And it wasn't near the injustice of Dan Evans getting fired; or Jim Tracy getting fired.

It's commensurate with the stathead philosophy that the numbers will tell you everything, another thing at least partially debunked by both the White Sox this year and the failure of the Yankees as they've morphed their team from the Paul O'Neill gamer types to the Sheff/Giambi types.

Oh yeah, and the other debunked theory - "A reliever is a reliever, there is no such thing as a "closer". Once again - attributing absolutely no value to the psychological aspects of the game....and being completely wrong.

Norberto7
11-11-2005, 09:30 AM
It sounds like he deserved to get fired to me, but at least he wasn't responsible for paying this guy $11+ million this year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3030