Buck meeting with Angelos today...

[Stotle]

We're talking about Peter Angelos here, not a random "baseball decision maker". Angelos is going to use every factoid possible to squeeze as much as he can out of Toronto. It's his MO. And I think he's likely to be incredibly PO'ed about this situation and make this as painful as possible for Toronto. I also think he's stubborn enough to say "no" no matter how much that poisons DD's remaining time in Baltimore. Long-winded way of saying that I think it matters to Angelos and that Angelos will use any and all justifications to negotiate a better deal.

I agree with that. Sometimes that means a great deal and sometimes it means a deal doesn't get done. But I don't disagree with your points at all.

[Stotle]

Does a player who is under team control for four years have more value to his original team than one who is under control for one year? I think it's pretty analogous from the standpoint of the Orioles (not from the Blue Jays' side).

To me, the divisional aspect matters a lot. We play the Blue Jays 18-19 times a year, and here's a guy who knows everything about our team, and knows a lot about what our team does to prepare to play the Blue Jays. It gives them a competitive advantage when we play them, which is tolerable when you play them one or two series a year, but not when you are playing them all the time. And this is a team we are trying to finish ahead of during the regular season so we can go to the playoffs.

So, the player analogy is interesting. I think it's only really relevant if we are talking about a solid major league contributor. If there a significant difference between a replacement level player signed for $4 MM/1 year or $16 MM/4 years? I guess maybe in theory. You can construct an argument wherein rising salaries mean the contract becomes more valuable as times goes on, even at the low-end of the talent pool. But there are a lot of potential replacements for that player when he leaves and are you really worried about filling those shoes?

Now, you have a solid first division third baseman signed for $1/1 or $4/40 and we are talking about a pretty huge difference. There are a limited number of players who can produce at that level and if you have to go get one your probably spending more than you currently have on the books for the player in question.

So, I think it comes down to me viewing the exec as being closer to the replacement level player and you viewing the exec as being closer to the first division everyday player, for compensation purposes. I do think comparative salaries point more to the former than the latter, but it's solely a difference of opinion, which is cool.

W/r/t divisional rivals, MLB is pretty incestuous -- all the concerns you have about "strategies of Baltimore" are true of lots of people in the organization, from an advance scout all the way up to assistant GM, special assistant, and even interns. I'm not sure what, if any, NDAs exist at the executive level, so I acknowledge your point and don't have a firm comeback other than teams let lots of employees walk, including employees that have insight into strategies. Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

[Frobby]

So, the player analogy is interesting. I think it's only really relevant if we are talking about a solid major league contributor. If there a significant difference between a replacement level player signed for $4 MM/1 year or $16 MM/4 years? I guess maybe in theory. You can construct an argument wherein rising salaries mean the contract becomes more valuable as times goes on, even at the low-end of the talent pool. But there are a lot of potential replacements for that player when he leaves and are you really worried about filling those shoes?

Now, you have a solid first division third baseman signed for $1/1 or $4/40 and we are talking about a pretty huge difference. There are a limited number of players who can produce at that level and if you have to go get one your probably spending more than you currently have on the books for the player in question.

So, I think it comes down to me viewing the exec as being closer to the replacement level player and you viewing the exec as being closer to the first division everyday player, for compensation purposes. I do think comparative salaries point more to the former than the latter, but it's solely a difference of opinion, which is cool.

W/r/t divisional rivals, MLB is pretty incestuous -- all the concerns you have about "strategies of Baltimore" are true of lots of people in the organization, from an advance scout all the way up to assistant GM, special assistant, and even interns. I'm not sure what, if any, NDAs exist at the executive level, so I acknowledge your point and don't have a firm comeback other than teams let lots of employees walk, including employees that have insight into strategies. Maybe it matters, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

Well, you are the one with some actual knowledge of how a baseball front office works, so I find it interesting that I value a good exec more than you do. I'll just say that I've seen how a team can struggle for years if it has poor executive leadership, and the addition of one so-so player can't fix that. Heck, even one really good player can't fix it.

That said, I think it's harder to evaluate executives than it is to evaluate players, and that's a reason why good executives are undercompensated. Look at how we debate the relative impact of MacPhail, Duquette and Buck on the Orioles' current success. A move a GM makes may take years to evaluate while a player's results have immediate impact.

[scOtt]

Scherzer: But it's just Monopoly money!

Is now...

[Stotle]

Well, you are the one with some actual knowledge of how a baseball front office works, so I find it interesting that I value a good exec more than you do. I'll just say that I've seen how a team can struggle for years if it has poor executive leadership, and the addition of one so-so player can't fix that. Heck, even one really good player can't fix it.

That said, I think it's harder to evaluate executives than it is to evaluate players, and that's a reason why good executives are undercompensated. Look at how we debate the relative impact of MacPhail, Duquette and Buck on the Orioles' current success. A move a GM makes may take years to evaluate while a player's results have immediate impact.

It is interesting -- I think my personal opinion is that there are a lot of really talent FO folk who could step in and run a team. A bad exec can absolutely sink the ship, but I guess I am just a little more confident that the talent pool for possible GMs is deep enough that you don't HAVE to wind up with a bad exec unless ownership decides to artificially narrow that pool. Meaning? There are a lot of smart FO guys floating around the game. Find one you believe in and get out of the way. No one is turning down the opportunity to run a baseball club if they are comfortable they'll actually be able to run it. And even the smart guys that run into trouble seldom leave an org in really bad shape (e.g. Toronto, for all its flaws, would be a great org to take over based on the infrastructure that's been built and the talent currently in house; ditto Texas; ditto Arizona; ditto Colorado).

This exchange has made me think a lot -- thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate them.

[Frobby]

It is interesting -- I think my personal opinion is that there are a lot of really talent FO folk who could step in and run a team. A bad exec can absolutely sink the ship, but I guess I am just a little more confident that the talent pool for possible GMs is deep enough that you don't HAVE to wind up with a bad exec unless ownership decides to artificially narrow that pool. Meaning? There are a lot of smart FO guys floating around the game. Find one you believe in and get out of the way. No one is turning down the opportunity to run a baseball club if they are comfortable they'll actually be able to run it. And even the smart guys that run into trouble seldom leave an org in really bad shape (e.g. Toronto, for all its flaws, would be a great org to take over based on the infrastructure that's been built and the talent currently in house; ditto Texas; ditto Arizona; ditto Colorado).

This exchange has made me think a lot -- thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate them.

I appreciate your thoughts, too. I'm not sure good execs are as fungible as you suggest, but I think it's harder to evaluate them. You can attempt to measure the difference between Mike Trout and Adam Jones (both all star outfielders), but it might be harder to measure the difference between Theo Epstein and Dan Duquette, in terms of their impact on a team's ability to win and make money, even if the differences are just as great.