tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post6834311790938483329..comments2023-10-17T10:45:07.796-04:00Comments on FJB: Anatomy of a train wreck (Pt. 2)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-41063158154030649882008-06-25T09:06:00.000-04:002008-06-25T09:06:00.000-04:00@Simon--thanks. Yeah, you're probably right. It ...@Simon--thanks. Yeah, you're probably right. It probably would have been more persuasive to just assume we took Zimmy with that pick. I was just having fun at that point, but taking Ryan Zimmerman with the fifth pick in 2005 is not our problem.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109288910583404941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-44856739165698753262008-06-25T08:35:00.000-04:002008-06-25T08:35:00.000-04:00Great post. Just one quibble. Ryan Braun has fir...Great post. Just one quibble. Ryan Braun has firmly demonstrated that he cannot play third base. Having him at 3b last year with Young at 1b would have resulted in an absolute horror show. Although, if there's no Kearns, does Nick break his leg? Ahh, he'll get hurt some other way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-32691418692084581342008-06-24T22:33:00.000-04:002008-06-24T22:33:00.000-04:00J--Well, yes and no. We resemble the Royals in ou...J--Well, yes and no. We resemble the Royals in our interminable crappyness and our lack of any hope on the near-horizon.<BR/><BR/>But the Royals are a small market team with a far more legitimate gripe about payroll than the Lerners (although their ownership has been pocketing revenue sharing money for years, so even their payroll really should be higher). <BR/><BR/>We are not a small market team. We had some artificial spending constraints for the first 2 years, and owner-imposed constraints now.<BR/><BR/>My last 2 long posts were an attempt to answer the question I posed at the start--is it possible to build a winner with the budget bowden has had, or should we just give him a pass because of the salary the way so many Bowden defenders do.<BR/><BR/>That's not an implicit endorsement of the payroll as it is, it's just an effort to make an intellectually honest argument that the payroll isn't an excuse for JimBo.<BR/><BR/>The point Harper @ OMG makes, which I think is right to an extent, is that you can spend on FAs AND rebuild at the same time. And you can't rebuild and give away draft picks and prospects at the same time the way Bowden has. Plus, it's harder to score blue-chippers in the draft picking at 16 and 51 than it is picking at 5 and 50, so there is a rationale to bottoming out as part of the rebuilding process.<BR/><BR/>But all that said, if you can draft really well from the middle of the first round on, and you have an owner willing to spend $70-80m or more you could add pieces like Loiaza and to stay respectable while still building a WS team.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109288910583404941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-33750784586120049302008-06-24T21:51:00.000-04:002008-06-24T21:51:00.000-04:00So this is what it's like to be a Royals fan. But ...So this is what it's like to be a Royals fan. But without the '85 series. <BR/><BR/>imissrfk.blogspot.comJoe Websterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04597357808357066943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-63954434966133241762008-06-24T17:31:00.000-04:002008-06-24T17:31:00.000-04:00I don't think so. First, I'm not saying that beca...I don't think so. First, I'm not saying that because Bowden didn't do all these things right he should be fired. I'm saying that the position put forth by Bowden defenders that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE given his financial limitations to build a successful team is not accurate. Would it be easy? No, you'd have to have a smart strategy and you'd have to execute it well. A little good luck wouldn't hurt.<BR/><BR/>But I'm not cherry-picking moves at all, if by that you mean just going back and taking away the deals that worked out and leaving in the deals that didn't. I'm starting with the premise that you commit to youth and saying don't do moves that make you older/more expensive. Keep the picks you threw away for Guzman and Castilla. Let the team bottom out. Get the top pick in the draft.<BR/><BR/>Chris was busting my chops on the last post that I was saying not to do the Loiaza deal, even though we both agree that deal worked out. But it wouldn't be intellectually honest of me to say "commit to youth and don't spend on aging one-year rentals" and then cherry pick the one that seems to have worked net out in our favor.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, I'm just consistently following a philosophy--no one-year rentals, never do a deal that involves young for old, cheap for expensive, etc. Maybe you like the Kearns deal. That one's clearly debatable. For the purpose of this exercise, I don't even consider it an option since it breaks from the philosophy I set out in the hypothetical.<BR/><BR/>On the draft, yeah, I'm assuming we draft well. I think if you impose a small budget AND you draft poorly, then yeah there's no chance of success.<BR/><BR/>But my scenario is not "Future Biff" (like assuming we can get Mike Piazza in the 62nd round). I'm assuming that when we bottom out with bad, bad teams in 05-06 and get three very high draft picks in a row (#5, #1, and #8) that those picks work out pretty good, like good-drafting teams like the Sox, Rays, DBacks and Brewers have done.<BR/><BR/>Plus, I didn't look *at all* beyond the 2nd round, so I'm assuming that it's impossible to improve on Bowden's performance beyond there. That's a huge concession that I don't actually believe, but in the interests of fairness there you go.<BR/><BR/>But fine, if that's too much for your taste, then let's assume we don't take Braun, we still take Zimmerman (Tulowitzki's better too, but nevermind).<BR/><BR/>With the way I tear apart the 06 squad with the intent of bottoming out to rebuild, we DEFINITELY get Price, and he was clearly the #1 pick (his arm could break tomorrow, so there's no guarantee, but he's ours).<BR/><BR/>The only other really good draft picks I factor in are Lincecum and Buchholz.<BR/><BR/>Let's say we completely waste the Lincecum pick (which would be a monumental screw up, since that's a #8 pick, up from 16, as a result of the decision to commit to youth right away, part of the benefit of not being an 81-win team in 2005), but let's say we waste it totally.<BR/><BR/>And with the Buchholz pick, instead of choosing the best possible guy, we take, oh, Owings. Not a total waste, but someone of value.<BR/><BR/>So now, I'm assuming that we commit to a strategy of rebuilding through the draft AND that we don't really execute it all that well. We're still better in way way way better shape than we are now.<BR/><BR/>2009 team, mediocre draft success version (still younger/cheaper/better than what we have now):<BR/><BR/>C: Flores<BR/>1B: Nick<BR/>2B: Izturis<BR/>SS: Furcal<BR/>3B: Zimm<BR/>LF: Dukes/Rivera<BR/>CF: use the Hudson money for Rowand, since now you don't have Ankiel<BR/>RF: Milledge<BR/><BR/>SPs: Owings, Price, Lannan, Hill, Galarraga<BR/><BR/>Bullpen: Rauch (closer), Downs, Rivera, Ayala, Bray, and Bergmann, Majewski, or Colome<BR/><BR/>The reason he should be fired is because he RAN in the opposite direction--time and again going for old over young, more expensive over cheaper, and throwing away prospects and draft picks for one-year rentals and declining vets for teams going nowhere.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109288910583404941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-42101048491277708302008-06-24T16:29:00.000-04:002008-06-24T16:29:00.000-04:00What you are asking is too much - you want Bowden ...What you are asking is too much - you want Bowden to have pulled off 4 perfect years of roster management. <BR/><BR/>4 years of great drafts. 4 years of deals and non-deals that work out for the Nats. 4 years of players developing as exactly they have in the past 4 years, with no injuries to speak of (a issue with the Nats to be sure). There's too much hindsight involved here. <BR/><BR/>Would Rasner, Thompson, Galarraga, Braun develop in the same manner as they have in the Nats farm system, expecially pre-Kasten? <BR/><BR/>Would the Giants trade Mock/Chico if they didn't get to draft Linceum? <BR/> <BR/>Would there not be a surprise break-out year (Church, Rivera, Izturis, Harris) that might add a few wins to the Nats total?<BR/><BR/>Would Ankiel really have signed with anyone but the Cardinals? <BR/><BR/>It's not just good execution, it's "future Biff brought me this sports book" execution. <BR/><BR/>You're dead right that the team would be further along if 2005 was handled differently. Alot further along? Not sure - but somewhere further. The question is is how much you'd want to blame Bowden for that.Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07738813756060133236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-21230363233534916722008-06-24T15:05:00.000-04:002008-06-24T15:05:00.000-04:00Bowden had basically no boss at all under MLB. As...Bowden had basically no boss at all under MLB. As a tribute to CP, I'll link to what Chris quoted JimBo saying when he came to DC (it's the second post in the archive titled "Bowden Speaks":<BR/>http://dcbb.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_archive.html<BR/><BR/>The key statement: "I get to make all the baseball decisions, within the budget."<BR/><BR/>He showed that was the case by immediately signing Vinny Castilla to an irretrievably stupid contract that no one would have signed off on, if there was anyone watching him at all.<BR/><BR/>You're right, though, when Kasten came in, he gave the orders: "STOP BEING STUPID! STOP ACTING LIKE THE ORIOLES! WE'RE COMMITTING TO YOUTH. WE'RE BUILDING FOR THE LONG-TERM! THE PLAN!"<BR/><BR/>The question is this: why would you put a guy in charge who has shown that left to his own devices he would do the exact OPPOSITE of what you want done?<BR/><BR/>It's more like this: David Petreas takes over in Iraq, and immediately hires Don Rumsfeld to run the day-to-day operation.<BR/><BR/>So I do hold Stan and the Lerners accountable for making a terrible decision hiring Bowden. But like Ron Wolf always said--the only thing worst than making a mistake is living with it.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109288910583404941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2074246508221440257.post-44958739963821452702008-06-24T14:48:00.000-04:002008-06-24T14:48:00.000-04:00Bowden's fatal mistake wasn't any particular move ...<I>Bowden's fatal mistake wasn't any particular move or non-move, it was the inability or unwillingness to accurately assess the state of the team in 2004 and to pursue the a long-term strategy to build a contender. That, not any particular move or non-move, is why we're still suffering as fans now. And that's why he should be fired.</I><BR/><BR/>You're delusional. Bowden's boss and therefore his marching orders changed halfway through the four-year period during which he's been GM. You can't just say that because he's failed to execute a cohesive strategy during that time he deserves to be fired. That would be like saying everyone in the Pentagon should be fired because they started a war under a Bush/Cheney administration and then failed to win it under a Dennis Kucinich administration.<BR/><BR/>You call this blog "Fire Jim Bowden", but what it really is is "Slam Jim Bowden". You're doing to Bowden what Kathy Griffin was doing to Jerry Seinfeld in <A HREF="http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheCartoon.htm" REL="nofollow">this Seinfeld episode</A>. Nothing more, nothing less. This is more about you than it is about Jim Bowden. Why don't you just admit here that you hate him, like you did on Baseball Think Factory, and be done with it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com