Was sending J.J. Hardy down the wrong move?
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 12:51 PM CDT
in Statistical Analysis
125 comments
Sometime before tomorrow's game, J.J. Hardy will be recalled from Nashville and added to the Brewers' active roster. At the time of his demotion, he was hitting .229/.300/.367, and the Brewers had a prospect at shortstop, Alcides Escobar, who was big league ready or close, hitting .298/.353/.409 for Nashville with 42 stolen bases.
The move, though, came at a very interesting time. Before the move, it was assumed Hardy would be eligible for free agency following the 2010 season. The demotion to AAA came just in time to allow Hardy to accumulate 20+ days in AAA before September 1, and that loss of service time means he'll be arbitration eligible for two more seasons, and won't become a free agent until the end of 2011. If the Brewers had waited two extra days, Hardy's stay in AAA would not have been long enough to impact his service time.
Did the Brewers make the right decision by sending Hardy to Nashville when they did? Vote in the poll below, and follow the jump for more on the four arguments.
Here are what I see as the four arguments regarding this decision:
It was the right move because it keeps Hardy under team control for one more season. It's no secret that Hardy will likely be available on the trade market this offseason, as the team transitions to the Alcides Escobar era. Now that Hardy will be under team control for an extra year, the Brewers are actually giving up two seasons of control over Hardy, instead of one, which increases his value. Even if the Brewers decide to keep him, they've got a moderately valuable commodity under team control for an extra season.
It was the right move because the team is better off playing Alcides Escobar. Hardy's value this season came almost exclusively from his defense, and offensively he was a detriment to the team, posting an OPS lower than even his 2005 and 2006 seasons. Since coming to the majors, Escobar has outproduced Hardy offensively (his OPS is 27 points higher), he adds a lot of speed to the lineup and his defense has been similarly solid. Furthermore, getting Escobar major league playing time at this point in his career allows him to learn in a lower pressure environment, and gives the team an opportunity to evaluate what they have going into 2010.
It was the wrong move because Hardy gives the team a better chance to win now. Hardy's true talent level is likely significantly higher than his low slash line this season would suggest. Assuming Hardy was able to take a mental break, make adjustments and revert to his 2007-2008 form, he's a roughly .800 OPS hitter, which is better than all but the most optimistic projections for Escobar. If he was able to turn it around, Hardy's upside is much higher than Escobar's in the short term. And, even as bad as he's been offensively, Hardy's defense makes him a league average or better shortstop overall.
It was the wrong move because sending down an established veteran to slow his arbitration clock is a poor ethical decision. Regardless of how you feel about the talent/potential difference between Hardy and Escobar, most people will agree that Hardy is still a major league caliber player. Keeping him in the minor leagues long enough to prevent him from becoming a free agent in 2010 is unfair to him, and while it's technically legal, it's unethical, could impact the organization's relationship with Hardy and his agent, and could impact how the Brewers are seen by players considering coming to Milwaukee.
So, what do you think?
0 recs |
125 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
JJ Hardy.
I think sending him down was fine. He really struggled this year, and I don’t trust Macha to give Escobar PT with Hardy+Counsell in Milwaukee.
As far as the service time goes — I think Hardy will do well enough in Arby, that I don’t think delaying his service time will substantially hurt his future “payday”. I don’t think the Brewers are going to realize anything substantial in trade by having that extra year of control either.
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 31, 2009 1:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The only thing substantially hurting his future payday was his performance this year. Sending him down actually does him a favor in that it gives him two more years to prove he is worthy of a nice payday in free agency.
I do not get at all why Escobar is not playing 6 times a week. Give him an off day here and there, sure, but his defense alone has shown that he has tremendous value. Add to it his great speed and there is no reason this kid shouldnt be starting almost every game from here on out.
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he'd rather have a 5 year contract paying him the same amount of money as a 1 year arby contract
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 31, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure
He says,
I think Hardy will do well enough in Arby, that I don’t think delaying his service time will substantially hurt his future "payday".
I interpret that as if he hits free agency in 2010, his contract will be roughly equal to however much he will make in arbitration.
That’s probably true. However, Hardy wants to hit free agency to get a long term contract. A 5 year contract at $4.5MM per year is much more lucrative than a 1 year arbitration contract for the same amount of money.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 31, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think teams are really going to give Hardy a 5 year/$22M deal anytime soon?
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 31, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough then.
If you think teams are going to give JJ a 5 year deal, I can see that point….
Still, it’s really only cash from the future — it’s not as if he got screwed out of money owed to him. It’s hard to argue all of the potential scenarios that “could” happen.
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 31, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was throwing out a figure
Point is, even if it’s a 3 year deal, he’s losing out on a long term contract that is filled with guaranteed money (injury protection) and job security. It’s not so much about the dollar amount that he will make in 2011.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 31, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because he's not eligible for free agency...
doesn’t mean that he can’t (or won’t) get a long-term contract.
If a team (any team) thinks Hardy is worthwhile, they’ll lock him up with a long-term contract… regardless what his status is. Waiting until a player is eligible for free agency before signing him to a long-term contract is not as common as it used to be.
by sjlee on Aug 31, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"It's really only cash from the future"
Right, but it’s guaranteed cash.
Let’s say J.J. trips and falls in spring training 2011 and screws up his knee. His value as a major league ballplayer could very well end in that moment. If he’s on a one year arbitration deal, then the $4.5 million or so he’s making is all the money he’ll ever make playing baseball. If he’s on a 5 year deal, then he’ll get all of that.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but it’s guaranteed cash.
Not at this point…
I guess the problem I have with painting the Brewers as Draconian, is that I think it is a substantial assumption that JJ would have gotten a multi-year deal after 2010. If he puts up in 2010 what he did in 2009, he may very well get non-tendered.
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 31, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I thought
On first glance it sounded like his 5 year deal would be worth his 1 year arby deal. Not same per year. More guaranteed money always is preferrable.
by Junked on Aug 31, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
substantially
“…substantially…”
So screwing a guy out of money is OK, so long as don’t “substantially” screw him…OK, good to know!
by robertearle on Aug 31, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
substantially
First, I don’t see how the Brewers are screwing Hardy – his demotion was merited.
Second, I really fail to see where JJ is going to lose much if any money by his demotion. If he has another year like this one, he may get non-tendered and then all of this is moot.
Basically, I think Hardy deserved to get demoted, and the service-time issue is much ado about nothing.
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 31, 2009 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcom to Labor Law
Its part of the collective bargaining agreement to protect the teams, the players and the game.
Hardy got screwed by playing poorly. The team didnt do anything wrong here. Throw in the small market aspect and having to scrimp for every dollar to win, they did the right thing. And, he got “screwed” out of future money, not money that was in a contract. He is still going to be paid his a salary this year, not based on performance, and he will most likely get a raise, again, not based on performance.
In a game where every cent listed on a contract is guaranteed money, I love what the Brewers did here. They paused his arb clock, they get themself another year of a decent player, and showed a professional athlete that if you dont perform as expected, youre going to get hurt in the wallet.
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prince
Prince was at three years 68 days service time at the beginning of 2009. That means if he is assigned to Nashville for April and May next season, his free agency can be delayed from 2012 until 2013? So should the Brewers pause his arby clock and get themselves another year of a great player?
by robertearle on Aug 31, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we're only getting another year of JJ Hardy.
by Zeyes on Aug 31, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, or equivalent value.
I was just trolling robertearle and his obnoxiously earnest entitlement mentality, anyway.
by Zeyes on Aug 31, 2009 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, of course not.
JJ was demoted because of sucktitude, plus we had a capable replacement in the wings.
If we send Prince down, we lose a bunch of games.
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 31, 2009 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
...we lose a bunch of games.
But you trade two months without Prince for an extra full season with him; you’d end up with more wins overall.
by robertearle on Aug 31, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
That is an absurd arguement to make. If Hardy wouldv’e had his career average numbers this wouldn’t have happened. The possibility of killing two birds with one stone(a look at Escobar and getting an extra year of control for Hardy) is why the Brewers went this route. Holding Fielder back will never be an option . Way to add intelligent commentary to the discussion.
by Junked on Aug 31, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't supposed to be a suggestion, it was making a point that holding someone back for the sole purpose of keeping him under team control is retarded.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The idea that team control
is the sole reason this move was made is equally retarded.
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because its Fielder..
Yes bad argument.
But teams delay a players entrance to the league all the time to delay the start of their service time clock. Why not do it to postpone? I would assume it is legal, and for a really cash strapped team, might be an alternative. Down side, and its huge is that no agent will want to send his players to that team voluntarily, and if youre having a 3 WAR year and this is done, a grievance is probably on the way, in which case an abritrator probably rules in the players favor.
The argument above is great in this case because Escobar is ready to go and replaces Hardy well, not so much with whoever replaces Fielder.
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Prince Vs JJ to AAA thing
is a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting we send Prince down because he’s awesome, and there is no equally awesome 1B prospect at AAA pushing him for PT. JJ sucked, at least this year, and Escobar is one of the better prospects in baseball who just also happens to play JJ’s favorite position. How are those two scenarios the same?
So should the Brewers pause his arby clock and get themselves another year of a great player?
Should the Brewers have refused to trade Suppan straight up for Cliff Lee?
The answer is, who cares, because it is a completely ridiculous premise.
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Block quote fail
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a strawman..
More a case of taking the idea to its extreme.
That is, if manipulating JJ’s service time to gain an extra year of arbitration control is a good idea, then why isn’t it a good idea to do the same to Prince (or Gallardo, or…)?
Feel free to employ another time-honored rhetorical trick and deny the premise.
by robertearle on Aug 31, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there must be a ceiling/floor here somewhere.
Above the line is a player you’d never consider messing with in this manner, below the line is a player you’ll do it with. The Brewers would never consider doing something like this to Prince. They might do it to someone like Bill Hall. The question is, is J.J. Hardy above that line?
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The Line"
I don’t really see it as a subjective issue. As has been mentioned before, If Hardy puts up his career line, or even just a modest (rather than enormous) regression from his 07 & 08 numbers, no one ever thinks of demoting him and gaining service time.
So…let’s say that next season Prince Fielder puts up numbers like JJ Hardy did this year (all things equal, contract NOTWITHSTANDING), there would most certainly need to be discussion about sending him down. The biggest discrepancy, however, being that Joseph Koshansky is not Alcides Escobar.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 31, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And there's an option in the poll
Specifically intended for people who think it’s a good move and a bad move. It’s the “sitting on the fence” option.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hasn't this been beaten to death?
We had a full, lively thread on this already.
by Marty McSuperFly on Aug 31, 2009 1:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to the internet, where, if it exists, it exists at least twice.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
...and youtube covers.
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 31, 2009 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My first reaction, too
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Aug 31, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
But it’s an off day, and it’s relevant now since Hardy will be back tomorrow. I know we’ve had this conversation, but I think it beats spending all day talking about someone else’s fantasy football team, anyway.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
As of this comment, 200 people have voted and 54 comments have been posted, so obviously people still want to talk about it.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
or are really bored. But that might just be me.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's an off day, everyone needs something to do.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm bored.....
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although, that was never really an option, unless one of them knew how to do something other than play short, of course.
Probably why it wasn’t on the list.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Reallly, since you’re arguing it was both a good move and a bad one, that’s option G. That’s what I voted.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we would never be having this discussion if Hardy hadn't played so badly this year
the team gave him plenty of time to turn it around, he has no one to blame or be mad at besides himself.
"Cubs fans boo again – 99% of these people can’t see the plate." -Ueck
by dux2bux on Aug 31, 2009 2:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't see how fairness or ethics come into play on this......
If it’s unfair to Hardy to send him to AAA, wouldn’t it also be unfair to Escobar to stash him at AAA to delay his clock and let Hardy bat @ .225 all year?
These guys are at the pinnacle of their profession, and everytime an athelete tries to get more money they use the line, “This is a business.” Well, it works both ways. JJ earned his demotion, in my opinion. I honestly don’t even like the suggestion that the arby clock was a factor. I don’t think the Brewers FO have done anything differently here than any other team would. There was no way to be fair to both JJ and Escobar, and in the end Escobar’s potential won out over JJ’s actual performance.
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 2:59 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
This season didn't impact Esky's clock at all. So... what?
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean to say,
bury Escobar in AAA forever so JJ can cash a check is unfair to Escobar.
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
15% of people say that it was
unethical to stop JJ’s clock. There are some that disagree with that.
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but that's not the same thing as saying "Let's bury Escobar in AAA forever"
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's not the same thing as burying him at AAA...
…. but the only way to get Escobar some playing time without stopping Hardy’s clock was to bring Escobar up and let Macha decide who plays every day. I believe Macha would have let Escobar rot on the bench and then complain when he didn’t produce in a spot start or pinch hit role. Much like he did with Gamel.
No thanks.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 31, 2009 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not if he was under orders to do it the other way around.
by Mykenk on Sep 1, 2009 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which seems unlikely...
… given the announcement yesterday that Escobar and Hardy would alternate starts at SS the rest of the way.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 1, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My only real problem with it
is the way that the move appears. Yes, Hardy was playing poorly enough to merit it, but at the same time, they sent him down at the exact right time for him to have been down 20 days when rosters expand. Whether or not they did it like that on purpose (and I don’t claim to know either way whether they did), it makes them seem kind of shrewd and unethical in a way that they wouldn’t if they had sent him down in July, for example, and I worry that this will impact their future dealings with players.
To put it another way, even if their reasoning for sending him down was entirely performance-based and service-time manipulation had nothing to do with it, the circumstances of it make it seem very much like it was all about service time, and I’m worried about how that reflects on the organization.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 3:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I can agree with that much.....
Taking the performance out of it, and just focusing on the timing would look shady. I like to think of it as, they waited as long as they could to allow JJ the chance to turn it around.
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but they could have waited another day, and this post wouldn't exist.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why should they wait.....to be nice?
Suppan, who has seen his ERA rise from 4.12 in his final year in St. Louis to 4.62 in 2007 and 4.96 last year, isn't an option in fantasy leagues - Rotoworld
by Adam P on Aug 31, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To not appear as if they're trying to manipulate the guys clock. Do it a day later, or 3 weeks prior, whichever.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not familiar on how all this service time stuff works...
how does demoting him three weeks prior make any difference? Wouldn’t he still lose FA eligibility in 2010 if he doesn’t rejoin the team in 20 days?
by sjlee on Aug 31, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't make a difference, but
It would make the whole thing seem less unethical. That is, if he were sent down weeks before, as opposed to on the exact day where he becomes uneligible if he comes back when rosters expand, it would come across as more of a performance-based move than a service-time based move.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's my point, if they'd done it earlier and kept him down for 20 days, no one would be viewing it as a serivce-time manipulation issue, it would have been 100% performance based.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they'd sent him down in July and also kept him down for exactly 20 days? Uh...
Of course people would still view it as a service time, and probably even moreso in that case; the only difference would have been that the controversy would have started 20 days later, not already when the demotion happened. They only way they wouldn’t is if he’d got sent down in July and spent significantly longer in AAA, perhaps again until September callups.
by Zeyes on Aug 31, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure?
Let’s say the Brewers did that… sent Hardy down to the minors a month ago, then waited until exactly 20 days before recalling him. Are you sure no one would be questioning it?
by sjlee on Aug 31, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, to be clear
if they kept him down exactly 20 days, it’d be even more obviously a service time manipulation, but I figured if they sent him down last month, he’d probably still be coming up tomorrow, or maybe sometime in the middle of this month, but not exactly 20 days later.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes it would
we’d be speculating that they’d be leaving him down until the 3rd.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 31, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think they would
they’re “staggering call-ups” due to Nashville’s run. He wouldn’t have to be the first.
If they sent him down for the 20 days AFTER the rosters expanded to 40….THEN we’d be crying foul.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 31, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the minor league season doesn't last 20 days past Sept 1st, IIRC.
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so...
you’re saying it’d be hyper-insulting and devious to keep him down longer than that then:P
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 31, 2009 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's try an analogy to make your point.
Let’s say you tell your kids, “Hey, if you’re good all week I’ll take you to a Brewer game on Sunday.” Then on Saturday, you find something they did that’s unsatisfactory, and take away the Brewer game on Sunday. Did you do it because they did something bad, or because you never intended to take them to the game in the first place?
This move is like that, in that both options are possible, and because it’s possible the somewhat nefarious argument is the correct one, the organization comes off looking kinda slimy.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
If this is the case
Slimy that is..
Do you think its Melvin or Schlesinger or Attanasio at fault here?
If its Melvin that comes off looking like the bad guy in this deal, then not to worry, I doubt he will be around for next year.
But if this came down and was approved from the top, then thats something to be worried about. The flip side is that as much as I hate it, there is a huge part of the game that is nothing but dollars and cents, if a player refuses to come here because he is treated like a commodity, try playing for the Yankees or Red Sox and see what happens, its just as ugly.
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of Doug Melvin's job security
Is it the general consensus that he should be fired for this season? I was thinking about doing a FanPost about that; personally I think his good moves have generally outweighed his bad, but I’m willing to hear other arguments.
Of course, I think if Doug loses his job this offseason and Omar Minaya gets to keep his, then that’s just fucked up.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely not.
I know a small percentage of fans are calling for Melvin’s head, but I’d be shocked to see it roll.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno if I'd be shocked about that
I definitely like him as GM, and don’t think he should lose his job, but I don’t know how that reflects on whether or not he will be fired.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
First thing to think of before firing an employee: is there someone better to replace him with.
Anyone?
by Mykenk on Aug 31, 2009 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if there was a vacancy today, the list of candidates would likely be the same as they were for the M's and Nats vacancies
So we’re probably talking about Kim Ng, Tony LeCava…and who else? I’ve forgotten most of them.
I don’t think any internal candidates would be considered. Jack Z would have been if he was still there.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they waited until years end
Jim Hendry…
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aside from the fact that they'd never hire a former Cub
If this move is being made for the reason we think it is (owner sick of current direction), it makes more sense for the new hire to be a young, first time GM that will be more likely to accept direction from an active owner.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention the move from
high spending capability to very limited spending
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
“access toinformaction concerning how the enemy works”
Isnt Ueckers side kick a former Cub guy?
I would go towards the Rangers or Rays and raid their scouting department to find a new GM. Or put up a classified ad in the Harvard MBA program newsletter.
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Irony
How ironic would it be if Melvin was replaced by a former Ranger?
Also, who’s the director of amateur scoting for the Giants?
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I'd like to revise the bit about not considering internal options
Because I forgot about Gord Ash.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps he's improved since then but...
most Toronto fans seem to think that while Ash may be a good guy to have on staff with clearly defined tasks, he’s a disaster waiting to happen when he holds all the reins himself and gets to make the whole gamut of GM decisions of his own accord.
by Zeyes on Aug 31, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly dumb question
is Paul DePodesta willing to leave the Padres to get to be a full GM?
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd have to ask him.
Here’s the place to ask.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably doesnt deserve it
But I have the feeling that any year like this one, especially after last year, is not going to sit very well with Attanasio.
He seems to have a little bit of Steinbrenner in him, and this years season, is probably very unacceptable. Someone is going to pay.
Last year when they fired Yost, I am certain that the conversation went something like:
Attanasio: I want you to fire Ned Yost Doug.
Melvin: But Mark, we have 12 games left and it might reflect very poorly on the organization if we made this move so close to the end of the season. It looks a little desparate.
Atanasio: Either way, he is gone, if you would like, you could go with him.
Melvin: (to media) The Milwaukee Brewers would like to announce that we have parted ways with Ned Yost as our manager…..
Melvin has been on thawed/thin ice I bet since last September.
by backtocali on Aug 31, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good vs. Bad
Are you talking strictly FA moves or also his handling of prospects and minor league talent?
by sjlee on Aug 31, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I’m not saying it’s a fair position for the organization to be in, but at the same time I think it could’ve been handled better. I mean, again, it’s not just that both possibilities are possible, it’s that the circumstances of this particular situation make it look bad, in that first of all, Hardy wasn’t necessarily playing bad enough to merit a demotion: Fangraphs had him listed at 1.5 WAR, which is plenty serviceable; and second of all, they happened to send him down at the exact right time to get another year of control over him.
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
Just like in my analogy, they waited until Saturday afternoon to take away the game.
"The reports are that he is getting better. The definition of better is nebulous."
by Kyle Lobner on Aug 31, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's like buying the tickets
only to scalp them away sunday morning
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 31, 2009 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was he or wasn't he
Hardy wasn’t necessarily playing bad enough to merit a demotion:
The fact that he left open the possiblity for this to happen is what put the Brewers in a position to do this. Should/could he have been sent down sooner? Maybe. Maybe while trying to trade him Mevin was turned down because of only one year left of control. We will never know because he will never come out and say if that’s true.
by Junked on Aug 31, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that you can make that analogy valid
Considering you’re then equating the Brewers organization with a family, rather than a business.
I think it would be more fair to make the analogue business related. I would think it would read something like:
You have an employee (employee A) who has performed quite well the past couple of years, and you have another bright young star (employee B) slightly lower down in the company who is turning many heads and raising quite a few eyebrows. Employee A has made your business quite a lot of money the past couple of years, and you look forward to him doing some heavy lifting as far as your revenue goals are concerned. You have given employee A ample compensation, and he understands his what is expected of him, and what he can make of himself down the road. Unfortunately, for the past 9 months, employee A has not only performed well below his own averages, but far below the trending averages across the industry. Employee B is primed and ready to go, and is making significantly less money, not to mention he has proven that he knows how to make the company money on par with or possibly in excess of what Employee A has done in the past. You talk to employee A and explain that you will replace him with Employee B, and A will take a demotion. Employee A knows, however, that should he perform back to the level he was, he may work back to the level he was at.
From a business standpoint, its really minimize costs, maximize productivity.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 31, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except..
Except Employee A doesn’t have the right to quit and go work for the competitor.
by robertearle on Aug 31, 2009 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
There’s probably no perfect analogue, but I just wasn’t sure the ‘family scenario’ was a better fit than any having to do with business.
I get KL’s post, though, and it does a better job of conveying that there certainly is a prevailing sense of ‘dirtiness’ about this whole thing.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 31, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One factor that hasn't been discussed
what is this doing to Escobar’s clock?
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 31, 2009 4:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nothing is right
He’s not playing nearly enough for this count as a full year, or for him to even come close to qualifying as a Super Two
Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?
by Lefti on Aug 31, 2009 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
day by day
Service time is tracked on a day by day basis. So to the extent that keeping JJ on the 25-man roster longer than they might otherwise have, and delaying Escobar’s call-up, they in turn delay the point at which Escobar will become arby eligible and then free agent eligible.
That’s the effect back in June or July by not having sent JJ down earlier. Now, when JJ gets called up doesn’t effect Escobar’s service time at all; as long as Escobar is on the 25-man roster (or whatever you call it once it has expanded), he will be credited for that day’s service time.
by robertearle on Aug 31, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think this is the small market equivalent of ripping the Yankees for bidding against themselves in free agency.
The Yankees upped their offer for Sabathia to 160 million from 140 million because they could. They move within the system to their advantage. I hate the economic imbalance and I hate that the Yankees react by essentially saying “what imbalance” when they get called on it, but I don’t blame them for taking advantage of their position.
Small market teams don’t have that advantage and they have to try to make up ground where they can. IF, and I still think it’s a big if, the move with Hardy was motivated by a desire to extend his wait for free agency, well, so what? Will it piss Hardy off? Probably. Will other players get pissed on his behalf? Maybe. But unless you think Hardy’s going turn into a clubhouse cancer or that other players will find ways to express their displeasure, then I don’t see how you can fault a small market team for taking advantage of a rule to extend their control over a player.
Particularly when that player is, offensively at least, performing at a level significantly below expectatitions and has been for months on end. If you don’t think Hardy should have been sent down because you don’t think his play merited demotion, I’ve got no problem with that. But if you don’t think he should have been sent down because you think what the Brewers did was immoral or unethical, I think that’s garbage. Players act in their own interest. Big market teams do too and I seriously doubt that if a big market team did something similar to this they’d draw much if any criticism from their fanbase. Are small market teams supposed to be more loyal to their players, or somehow “better” than their big market counter parts? Or are we just so attached to the players that come through the farm system (because it’s the only chance we have to get stars on the roster) that we no longer expect the team to act like their in business to make money and win?
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 31, 2009 8:36 PM CDT reply actions 6 recs
Interesting Take
Well put.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Aug 31, 2009 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Witrado's got an article on it.
And dammit, I broke down and read it, thus giving up (temporarily) on my boycott of that tool’s work.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 31, 2009 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Melvin essentially makes the same argument that Marty made the other day:
the Brewers let Hardy accumulate months and maybe years of service time while he was unavailable due to injury and/or not playing very well when he was available…
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 31, 2009 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really hate to say it...
… but assuming that everything in the article is factually accurate (I just don’t trust him at all), it’s not a badly written article. Particularly for Witrado.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 31, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well Put.
And, McCalvy’s got an article up as well. Look at this interesting quote:
“I feel for J.J. as a teammate,” said pitcher Dave Bush, the team’s union representative. “It could have happened to me last year when I was sent down [in May, only to be recalled days later when Yovani Gallardo suffered a knee injury]. It’s unfortunate from a player’s perspective, but there’s nothing illegal about it. You have to make the best you can out of it. The way I looked at it last year, if I had been pitching well I would have never gone down.”
If the team’s union rep has that take, I’d say we’re pretty safe in assuming most of baseball would as well. So…no need for sand in the bikini, right?
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Aug 31, 2009 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for that Bush quote.
Ultimately JJ controls how much money he makes, and even if he is semi-mediocre, he never gets sent down.
Taking Shallowness to New Depths...
by Fatter than Joey on Sep 1, 2009 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Random photos: Baseball celebrates St. Patrick's Day
- CC Sabathia mocks Hamels' video grenade ad with one of own
- Spring Snapshot: Angels look to retain their iron grip on AL West
- Mathis hopes strong postseason will translate into better at-bats
- Rangers manager Ron Washington regrets cocaine use in '09
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
