Falvey, Levine Well-Suited To Solve Roster Riddles

It's clear that athletes today are generally, nearly always, better than back in the day......but I guess I was comparing Winfield to his peers, relative to Sano to his peers......and that's no contest.

 

I'm not sure Sano is better even w/o taking into account 40 years of genetics and training and whatnot...what was this thread about, again?

When I think of athleticism for a baseball player, I include arm and raw power to the other things we would think of in terms of athleticism.  Sano has incredible raw power and one of the best arms of any position player in MLB.

What if he were in "Winfield" like shape?

When I think of athleticism for a baseball player, I include arm and raw power to the other things we would think of in terms of athleticism.  Sano has incredible raw power and one of the best arms of any position player in MLB.

 

What if he were in "Winfield" like shape?

That would be sweet. He's not.

I don't think that's a fair assessment.   People with far greater credentials than most of us believe that it is a good practice as evidenced by the frequency it is done.  In  other words, it should be done.  Your premise suggests that the people critiquing this practice on the internet understand what should or should not be done better than the people making these decisions.  That is highly unlikely, IMO.

It's a fair point, but we know now how many practices that were done in baseball were demonstrably poor ideas.  From the frequency of bunting, to the downplaying of walks, to a host of other things. We can show mathematically how those ideas led to less of what they were trying to accomplish (run scoring), not more.  

Also, simply citing decades of practice isn't a sufficient argument.  It suggests frequency of occurrence over time is sufficient for determining whether the practice is a good one.  That's fallacious reasoning.  "That's the way it's always been done" just won't cut it for me.  It's not that I think I'm more of an expert, but I'd definitely say my argument is stronger on the face of it.  I'm following more objective standards for good practice than simply falling in lock step with tradition.  

And if the Indians left Santana out there for a substantial amount of time it would eventually cost them badly too.

And it likely would've cost Carlos Santana too.  Much like it did to Sano's confidence and Schwarber's knee.

I don't think a single person who predicted the Sano experiment to fail didn't already know that some players can make the position switch just fine. 

Exactly, if the Cubs continue with Schwarber in the OF, I'll call that foolish too.

OK, another mod note.  This thread is about Falvey/Levine fixing roster holes, not about rehashing Sano to the OF and every mistake that the Ryan administration made.  That time is now officially over, so I think it's fair to stop bringing it up in every other thread and let the work that Falvey/Levine do speak for itself.  Feel free to criticize there when they do something you don't like, but let's give them a pass for Ryan's mistakes.

Thanks.

And yes, respond to someone's comments instead of just dismissing them.  That really is disrespectful and doesn't accomplish anything other than to slight someone else. If you don't have anything worth responding to, then ignore it. 

For clarification, are the roster riddles the new FO has to fix only roster holes or would one roster riddle be having Mauer, Vargas, Park, Plouffe and Sano? (Mostly underwhelming options and only 3 spots to put them)

This riddle does not seem that tough.  Non-tender Plouffe.  Give Sano this entire season to assess if he can play 3B.  The tough question is what are you willing to except for Dozier if an ideal scenario does not present itself?  The hope here is for ML ready SP.  Anyone trading for Dozier with 2 years of control is not going to trade ML ready starting pitching.  At least not one with the kind of ceiling we want in return. 

The bullpen is a quite the riddle as well.  You cant rely on Perkins at all.  Then, there is Hughes.  You have to have a spot to give these guys a shot at coming back, right?

I don't think either are "owed" a spot. They are owed money. Those are not the same things.

One thing I hope for from new leadership is greater recognition of that reality.

The wording I used could easily be misconstrued.  “Need a spot to give them a shot” is not at all the same as giving them a spot.  People endorse low risk high leverage acquisitions her all the time.  There is absolutely no risk with either player.  We already owe them the money.  Both have been very good performers at times, especially Perkins.  

I agree they've both been good players in the past.


But there are only 40 spots on the roster and 25 spots on the big league team. Those spots should go to players management thinks have the best chance to add wins in the future, not the players owed money. Maybe those are the same guys. But maybe not.

"We already owe them the money" IS the risk. I think it's been too much of a factor in the past.

There is a very large gap in how fans see this as compared to people that have or have had P&L responsiblity for organizations that generate 9 figures in revenue.  The "its not my money" perspective is incredibly naive.

There is a very large gap in how fans see this as compared to people that have or have had P&L responsiblity for organizations that generate 9 figures in revenue.  The "its not my money" perspective is incredibly naive.

I don't think you've ever posted this before. Is there a better way to make your point? Because it clearly isn't sticking with some people. An honest question, it isn't sticking, so is there a better way? I can't think of one, because what you type is true. OTOH, we are Fans, not rational beings. Rational beings wouldn't care if the Twins win....so I'm not sure rational discussions always work. That's what my leadership training says, if you are in an emotional discussion, rational arguments may make it worse....

Any decently-run business understands the concept of sunk costs. Companies cut investments loose all the time. So the idea that it's unrealistic to make decisions based on future returns, rather than past commitments, is just factually incorrect. I'd love some real world examples that show otherwise - that companies decided they had to stick with a sunk cost rather than move on to something with more future potential. SEC filers have to disclose a lot of their major decisions, so if it happens with regularity then there should be huge numbers of examples that can be shown. 

 

One area where some fans are unrealistic is the matter of annual player budgets - for instance, suggesting that a lower budget in one year should essentially allow for the 'savings' to be allocated to another year. Businesses don't treat operating expenses that way and so its no surprise baseball teams don't. 

Any decently-run business understands the concept of sunk costs. Companies cut investments loose all the time. So the idea that it's unrealistic to make decisions based on future returns, rather than past commitments, is just factually incorrect. I'd love some real world examples that show otherwise - that companies decided they had to stick with a sunk cost rather than move on to something with more future potential. SEC filers have to disclose a lot of their major decisions, so if it happens with regularity then there should be huge numbers of examples that can be shown. 

 

One area where some fans are unrealistic is the matter of annual player budgets - for instance, suggesting that a lower budget in one year should essentially allow for the 'savings' to be allocated to another year. Businesses don't treat operating expenses that way and so its no surprise baseball teams don't. 

You don't understand the definition of a sunk cost and neither do a number of people here who keep using it incorrectly.  If there is still hope of a return it's not a sunk cost.