Anyone have a link to MacPhail's Q&A from today?

[El Gordo]

The fact that MacPhail thinks the A-Rod contract was the worst in baseball history just goes to show how far out of touch he is with free agency and today's baseball economics and how uncreative his philosophy is when assembling a team.

I think what AM was saying was a variation of this: “In baseball, if you convince yourself you need a certain player, you’ve already lost. One player doesn’t have that much impact,” said Epstein. “It’s about building organizations. It’s not about adding players"

Even a guy who produces $30MM for $25MM wont help if you 're not building an organization.

[JTrea81]

I think what AM was saying was a variation of this: “In baseball, if you convince yourself you need a certain player, you’ve already lost. One player doesn’t have that much impact,” said Epstein. “It’s about building organizations. It’s not about adding players"

Even a guy who produces $30MM for $25MM wont help if you 're not building an organization.

One player did have that much impact in this case.

A-Rod in Texas was worth 26.7 WAR or 8.9 fWAR per season.

If you were to add A-Rod in his prime to the Orioles instead of JJ Hardy for instance, the Orioles would be an instant playoff contender.

True superstars do have that much impact.

[El Gordo]

One player did have that much impact in this case.

A-Rod in Texas was worth 26.7 WAR or 8.9 fWAR per season.

If you were to add A-Rod in his prime to the Orioles instead of JJ Hardy for instance, the Orioles would be an instant playoff contender.

True superstars do have that much impact.

A lot of good it did them. :rolleyestf:

[Sports Guy]

A lot of good it did them. :rolleyestf:

Well it would have done them a lot of good if they had a competent FO and ownership doing things properly.

AM was just flat out wrong and that has been proven several times in this thread and then by Cameron(who essentially said the same thing that has been said in this thread).

[El Gordo]

Well it would have done them a lot of good if they had a competent FO and ownership doing things properly.

AM was just flat out wrong and that has been proven several times in this thread and then by Cameron(who essentially said the same thing that has been said in this thread).

You mean like building an organization?:rolleyestf:

[Sports Guy]

You mean like building an organization?:rolleyestf:

Yes...but for to insinuate that you can't build an organization when you have a contract like ARODs is just flat out wrong. You are buying the same thing AM is selling and you are as big a fool as he is for believing it.

[El Gordo]

Yes...but for to insinuate that you can't build an organization when you have a contract like ARODs is just flat out wrong. You are buying the same thing AM is selling and you are as big a fool as he is for believing it.

If they spend 25 MM on one player when they need to focus on building the organization then that contract is a mistake. If I were you, I wouldn't be calling people fools.

[Sports Guy]

If they spend 25 MM on one player when they need to focus on building the organization then that contract is a mistake. If I were you, I wouldn't be calling people fools.

And luckily for me, you aren't because that would really be awful.

[hoosiers]

Dave Cameron weighs in on ARod's first big contract: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a-rods-first-contract-was-a-good-move/

I like a lot of fangraphs articles, but this kind of misses the boat on AM's point. The writers seems to want to point out the mistakes of the Texas front office with free agent signings - something that is quite obvious spending two minutes at Baseball Reference reviewing those teams.

Cameron says that Seattle received top contributions from guys like Mike Cameron, Freddy Garcia, Edgar Martinez, John Olerud, Brett Boone and Ichiro, but IMO it's quite stunning that the author would call out the contributions without discussion WHO WAS ALREADY IN WHICH ORGANIZATION WHEN AROD SIGNED. In fact, Ichiro signed with Seattle before ARod signed with Texas. Isn't AM's larger point the context of where the teams stood at the time of the signing and where they were going? This is completely lost on the author.

Only Ichiro and Boone were new to the Seattle organization in 2001. The rest were already there! That's been one of my points in this thread. Other teams in the division already had the pieces in place. The Rangers did not. They did not have the pieces on the major league team and admitted to a lack of starting pitching at the ARod news conference! Further, the Rangers did not have the minor league talent to improve the team in the near future.

I think the fangraphs article is a poor one.

________________________________________________________

Actually, let's look at what AM said about ARod's signing:

- it was a LOT of $ and ARod delivered on his contract

- attendance did not move

- the Rangers did not win

Aren't those the main points made by AM - anyone question that?

No one is disputing the first part - ARod produced 8 WAR for three years for the Rangers.

Attendance - increased from 2.6M in 2000, to 2.8M in 2001 with ARod to 2.4M and then 2.1M in ARod's last year. We've used a metric around here of $40 per attendee - let's say that was $30 in 2004. So, ARod is signed, payroll goes up $22M and several years later revenue from fans attending the games is actually DOWN $15M or more! Does anyone believe the financial projections of the Rangers had this as a worst case scenario when ARod was signed? It's no wonder the articles in 2004 reviewing ARod's trade to the NYY talk of the Rangers obtaining tremendous financial flexibility!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1735449

(The funny thing about the trade was the Rangers were going to pay ARod $6+M as a NYY as Soriano entered his arb years. In the exchange, the Rangers received approx $10M of payroll relief, but gave up 3-4 WAR - not counting that Soriano's projected increasing salary would reduce the $10M to as little as $6M! In other words, the payroll relief was more than fully offset by the decline in likely production - an interesting debate I am certain we had here at the OH. Of course, Soriano's actual production as a Ranger was horrible.)

So, the revenue needle did not move.

Winning:

Were the Rangers going to win while ARod was in town? They were not. They did not have the minor or major league talent to win. Interestingly, the Rangers, on the heels of drafting Mark Texeira in 2001 and the development of Hank Blalock who entered 2002 with half a season at AA, gave the Rangers the 8th best farm system per Baseball America entering 2002. Guess what - the Mariners were second best. The Rangers entered 2002 40+ games behind the Mariners and a worse farm system.

It's not like the Mariners were the only good team in the division. The As finished 2000 with 91 wins - receiving nearly 14 WAR for under $9M from Appier, Heredia, Zito, Hudson and Tam. In 2001, the As would win 102 games with 14 WAR from Zito, Mulder and Hudson alone at a cost of $1M.

Baseball America, in the 2002 prospect handbook wrote, "The Rangers have rarely relied on their farm system for major league talent in recent years. New General Manager John Hart is continuing that approach with an open checkbook from owner Tom Hicks and a win now approach that reflects the pressure they feel to win ..."

Of course there were free agent who did not pan out. Hart signed Juan Gone entering 2002 (4.7 WAR in 2001 with Cleveland) who was paid $24M over two years to produce 1.6 WAR over 640 at-bats.

The Rangers were not going to win in 2001, 2002 and 2003 when they signed ARod in 2000. They were not going to beat Oakland or Seattle. By the time the farm system was ready contribute in 2004, with Texeira, Mench and Blalock producing over 12 WAR at a cost near $3.6M, the Rangers were gasping to get out of the ARod contract in order to obtain financial flexibility!

I am surprised the fangraphs author completely misses the boat on the general direction of the Seattle, Oakland and Texas franchises at the time ARod was signed. There was a wide, wide gulf between the these teams throughout 2000-2004 that the Rangers were not going to cover - even after signing ARod away from Seattle.

AM is 100% correct in his statements.

[Sports Guy]

I like a lot of fangraphs articles, but this kind of misses the boat on AM's point. The writers seems to want to point out the mistakes of the Texas front office with free agent signings - something that is quite obvious spending two minutes at Baseball Reference reviewing those teams.

Cameron says that Seattle received top contributions from guys like Mike Cameron, Freddy Garcia, Edgar Martinez, John Olerud, Brett Boone and Ichiro, but IMO it's quite stunning that the author would call out the contributions without discussion WHO WAS ALREADY IN WHICH ORGANIZATION WHEN AROD SIGNED. In fact, Ichiro signed with Seattle before ARod signed with Texas. Isn't AM's larger point the context of where the teams stood at the time of the signing and where they were going? This is completely lost on the author.

Only Ichiro and Boone were new to the Seattle organization in 2001. The rest were already there! That's been one of my points in this thread. Other teams in the division already had the pieces in place. The Rangers did not. They did not have the pieces on the major league team and admitted to a lack of starting pitching at the ARod news conference! Further, the Rangers did not have the minor league talent to improve the team in the near future.

I think the fangraphs article is a poor one.

________________________________________________________

Actually, let's look at what AM said about ARod's signing:

- it was a LOT of $ and ARod delivered on his contract

- attendance did not move

- the Rangers did not win

Aren't those the main points made by AM - anyone question that?

No one is disputing the first part - ARod produced 8 WAR for three years for the Rangers.

Attendance - increased from 2.6M in 2000, to 2.8M in 2001 with ARod to 2.4M and then 2.1M in ARod's last year. We've used a metric around here of $40 per attendee - let's say that was $30 in 2004. So, ARod is signed, payroll goes up $22M and several years later revenue from fans attending the games is actually DOWN $15M or more! Does anyone believe the financial projections of the Rangers had this as a worst case scenario when ARod was signed? It's no wonder the articles in 2004 reviewing ARod's trade to the NYY talk of the Rangers obtaining tremendous financial flexibility!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1735449

(The funny thing about the trade was the Rangers were going to pay ARod $6+M as a NYY as Soriano entered his arb years. In the exchange, the Rangers received approx $10M of payroll relief, but gave up 3-4 WAR - not counting that Soriano's projected increasing salary would reduce the $10M to as little as $6M! In other words, the payroll relief was more than fully offset by the decline in likely production - an interesting debate I am certain we had here at the OH. Of course, Soriano's actual production as a Ranger was horrible.)

So, the revenue needle did not move.

Winning:

Were the Rangers going to win while ARod was in town? They were not. They did not have the minor or major league talent to win. Interestingly, the Rangers, on the heels of drafting Mark Texeira in 2001 and the development of Hank Blalock who entered 2002 with half a season at AA, gave the Rangers the 8th best farm system per Baseball America entering 2002. Guess what - the Mariners were second best. The Rangers entered 2002 40+ games behind the Mariners and a worse farm system.

It's not like the Mariners were the only good team in the division. The As finished 2000 with 91 wins - receiving nearly 14 WAR for under $9M from Appier, Heredia, Zito, Hudson and Tam. In 2001, the As would win 102 games with 14 WAR from Zito, Mulder and Hudson alone at a cost of $1M.

Baseball America, in the 2002 prospect handbook wrote, "The Rangers have rarely relied on their farm system for major league talent in recent years. New General Manager John Hart is continuing that approach with an open checkbook from owner Tom Hicks and a win now approach that reflects the pressure they feel to win ..."

Of course there were free agent who did not pan out. Hart signed Juan Gone entering 2002 (4.7 WAR in 2001 with Cleveland) who was paid $24M over two years to produce 1.6 WAR over 640 at-bats.

The Rangers were not going to win in 2001, 2002 and 2003 when they signed ARod in 2000. They were not going to beat Oakland or Seattle. By the time the farm system was ready contribute in 2004, with Texeira, Mench and Blalock producing over 12 WAR at a cost near $3.6M, the Rangers were gasping to get out of the ARod contract in order to obtain financial flexibility!

I am surprised the fangraphs author completely misses the boat on the general direction of the Seattle, Oakland and Texas franchises at the time ARod was signed. There was a wide, wide gulf between the these teams throughout 2000-2004 that the Rangers were not going to cover - even after signing ARod away from Seattle.

AM is 100% correct in his statements.

All you keep pointing out is why Texas was a bad organization....none of which has anything to do with AROD.

Much like MacPhail, you are 100% incorrect.

[Dannyboy]

A-Rod to Texas= $5000 rims on a $500 car.

[El Gordo]

All you keep pointing out is why Texas was a bad organization....none of which has anything to do with AROD.

Much like MacPhail, you are 100% incorrect.

If the Orioles are 71-91 this season, would signing Pujols for 8/250 be a good contact or a bad contract? It doesn't matter who the player is or how good he is, it's a bad contract, for a team like that, and the more money that is wasted on one player, the worse the contract is. MacPhail was speaking in the context of doing what it takes to win as opposed to spending money on p:puke: m players.

[Sports Guy]

Oh and btw, the year they signed AROD, their attendance increased 250K from the previous year.

Now, it did drop after that but that didn't have anything to do with AROD and his contract...It had to do with the Rangers doing a poor job of putting together a good team.

[El Gordo]

Oh and btw, the year they signed AROD, their attendance increased 250K from the previous year.

Now, it did drop after that but that didn't have anything to do with AROD and his contract...It had to do with the Rangers doing a poor job of putting together a good team.

And their win total increased by 2.:rofl:

[Sports Guy]

If the Orioles are 71-91 this season, would signing Pujols for 8/250 be a good contact or a bad contract? It doesn't matter who the player is or how good he is, it's a bad contract, for a team like that, and the more money that is wasted on one player, the worse the contract is. MacPhail was speaking in the context of doing what it takes to win as opposed to spending money on p:puke: m players.

Its a bad contract because of how poor this organization is overall....However, I would rather give something like that out than give out the horrendous contracts like we continue to give out to relievers and other middling FAs.

But I will say this...If the Rays were a 71 win team this year and all of a sudden, they decided they wanted to give Pujols an 8/250 deal, i think it would be a great move by them because they do things the way a real baseball team should.