There are two prevailing philosophies that dominate front offices across Major League Baseball.On the one side, you've got teams who are convinced every year that this could be "the year." This leads to a very predictable pattern of decision-making.
First, these franchises tend to be very active around the trading deadline, gladly swapping two or three good (or even great) prospects for a #5 starting pitcher. These moves are made even when the club is fighting only for the Wild Card and a first-round exit in the playoffs. Such franchises also sign free agents, and lots of them, to fill perceived gaps in thier rosters.
The upside is that franchises that throw their lots in with Philosophy 1 usually compete for their respective division titles or the Wild Card, and they sometimes make a legitimate run at (or win) the World Series.
The downside is that prospects and money are not renewable resources; after a certain amount of time, the franchise is out of top prospects to trade and has a limited budget to piece together a team in the free agent market.
The upside is that franchises that throw their lots in with Philosophy 1 usually compete for their respective division titles or the Wild Card, and they sometimes make a legitimate run at (or win) the World Series.
The downside is that prospects and money are not renewable resources; after a certain amount of time, the franchise is out of top prospects to trade and has a limited budget to piece together a team in the free agent market.
On the other end of the spectrum are franchises that are dedicated to growing talent from within.
Typically, these are the teams that are trading away the players that are free agents-to be in exchange for two or three prospects. These teams often don't have the money to bring in the big name free agents, but that's not always the case.
The downside to these franchises is they sometimes go through long rebuilding phases. At times, they are also accused of not caring because they don't "do what it takes" to win.
But the upside is tremendous. Teams that give prospects a chance to succeed (or fail) at the big league level often reap fantastic dividends. They get several years of good baseball out of their prospects at a relatively cheap price before the prospects are eligible for free agency. If they can't resign their young prospects, Philosophy 2 franchises simply trade them away and get two or three prospects in return and start the process over.
****
It's probably time to admit that I don't care much for free agency. It makes the players greedy and it means that any given athlete may play on four or five different franchises during his career. That stinks, and it makes rivalries difficult to sustain (wasn't he on our team last year?).
But I digress. Free agency is here to stay, and the two franchise philosophies described above will dominate the league for years to come. Which type is your franchise?
3 comments:
Fortunately, the Ponson trade wasn't as backbreaking as "The Minnesota Trade We Shall Not Speak Of". Damian Moss was about the biggest bust we've had in a while.
I believe you've got to find a happy medium with the two philosophies. I think the key is knowing your players, and Billy Bean is one of those guys that is really just a step ahead of everyone else out there. Can you think of a bad move he made off the top of your head? Most guys he's let go have dropped off in performance slightly, yet were paid dramatically more for their services.
To me, you almost need to treat your group of players like a portfolio. You buy low and sell high, and if you are in contention and you have some extra cash from doing that, you can buy a more elite player if you need someone to push you into the playoffs.
The Giants' biggest problem has, in my opinion, been their willingness to throw away draft picks, which is why they don't have a single promising hitting prospect in their farm system outside of a green 16 year old. They're willing to give away those draft picks for mediocre "veteran savvy and experience" of the Winn/Tucker/Roberts type. Now, they're in a tight spot where their only run production is gone in a year or two, and they'll have to spend a crapload on someone that probably just had a career year that won't be replicated (see Gary Matthews, Jr.). It is going to be an ugly next decade or so in San Fran unless they can trade away a Matt Morris type to an unsuspecting team who needs pitching badly (see: Tampa Bay and NY Yankees) enough to give up a few hitting prospects.
Luke-
First of all, it's great to hear from you again. I thought I'd lost you. :-)
Second, EXCELLENT comment. It kind of makes me sick to think about players as part of a portfolio, but players use owners to pad their own pockets, so I suppose it is all truly a business.
The more I think about it, building a successful franchise is about finding a balance: buying and selling when the time is right. Leave it to an accountant to thnk of that!
You're definitely right that Billy Beane has made some great moves (Frank Thomas, Milton Bradley...jury's still out on Mike Piazza), finding true value in players that others had cast aside. He was one of the guys I thought about as I wrote, in addition to John Schierholz (Braves GM) and Terry Ryan.
Sabean, meanwhile... I think he's gone sooner rather than later. We'll see, though.
Nah I was never gone, I just couldn't figure out how to change to a new Blogger account after they switched everything. Finally did, so here we go. How about a link to my blog?
Post a Comment