Master Index of Archived Threads


You're a hypothetical GM

Which path do you follow?

Play the overpaid vet, and sit the kid	9 votes
Play the underpaid kid, and sit the vet	5 votes
Trade the vet and eat most of his salary	5 votes

Bret Sabermetric Jan 18 2006 08:22 PM

You've got a player (let's say your LFer) signed to a long-term contract--let's call it a five-year, 40 mil deal, and he's just finished his third season of it, so you're on the hook for another 16 mil over the next two years. Problem is, the guy isn't worth quite that much. He's good, but not as good as you were hoping when you'd signed him. Let's say he's hit a fairly steady .280 for you over the first three years of the deal, averaged 20 HRs per year, like that. Let's say he throws lefthanded, and that your CFer, RFer, and IBman (the three positions a lefthanded outfielder might be moved to) are all signed up longterm, and you're perfectly happy with them, so changing his position is out of the question. Last season you brought up a kid to be your 4th outfielder, and while he didn't have quite the arm for RF or the range for CF you'd like to see (if you even had a spot for this kid in RF or CF) he's at least as good defensively as Mr.. 280/20. Your talent-evaluators (and your eyes) tell you that this kid's DOWNSIDE offensively is something like .280/20. His upside is batting champ/HR leader, and the most likely scenario has him putting up annual numbers like 25 HRs/.300 average. In other words, not only is this kid far cheaper than your incumbent LFer, he's probably a better player. Moving the incumbent is difficult. You've been trying, but since he's overpaid for what he gives you, anyone who'll think about taking him wants to you pay most of his salary, and you'd rather snack on lead chips than eat salary. You've no place to move either of these lefthanded outfielders, and (let's say they both bat lefty, so there's no platoon situation possible, and you need a good lefty bat off the bench) so the only question is which one do you play? So we can figure out the prevailing philosophy, let's assume that any extraneous questions can only be answered with "I dunno." or "it's a wash.'" Who's faster?' I dunno. " Which one's a better clubhouse infuence?" It's a wash. Like that. Do you tell the potential All-Star kid--"Wait your turn. The job is yours in three seasons. Until then, cool your heels on the bench"? Do you tell the overpaid vet-- "Ride some pine. We play people on merit, not on their paycheck, and this kid deserves some serious playing time"?

Nymr83 Jan 18 2006 08:55 PM

its hard for a scenario to be so clear cut in terms of knowing what you are getting, but if a scenario like this actually came up i'd trade one or the other for pitching or whatever else i needed, if this meant eating the old guy's salary thats fine as long as i'm getting good talent that i can use back.

KC Jan 18 2006 09:23 PM

I voted for overpaid vet, and I implore the rest of the forum to do the same.

metsmarathon Jan 18 2006 10:07 PM

play the vet, especially if im in a situation where i'd be better served with predictable performance, rather than a kid who might be ready just yet. the kid gives me good insurance incase one of my other guys goes down, and if he gets a good opportunity this season, or performs well in limited opportunities, maybe i revisit the issue next offseason, but its a long long ways away.

Nymr83 Jan 18 2006 10:08 PM

but if you can only play one of them doesnt it make more sense to trade one to fill a need?

metsmarathon Jan 18 2006 10:57 PM

kid gives me potential backup at four positions, dirt cheap, and i'm not sure i'd get much in return for mr. vet, am i? i mean, the guy's overpaid, right? how much will i get in return? do i really think it will offset the salary i pay or the young talent i give up? unless somebody is willing to blow me away on the kid, or surprise me tremendously on the vet, i'm keeping both and playing the surer vet.

Zvon Jan 18 2006 11:16 PM Re: You're a hypothetical GM

A big factor would be when that vet does his thing. .280/20 can be big if delivered at the right time. You havent gone into RBIs, and thats a most important factor. Sayin I dunno there would cost you your G.M. gig in a flash. So Ill assume in your hypothetical this vet drives in 80, and in inconsequentail situations. Cause 80 in the right spot would change everything. If this new kid can deliver the goods and has at least 3 yrs of minor league stats that back that up, after the vets third season Id eat green crow and trade him before the season starts, and go with the kid.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 18 2006 11:25 PM

If we're really trying to rid ourselves of extraneous information then we must also flush the all the rookie/vet/cheap/expensive noise too. If there's a player whose *downside* is 20/.280 -- right now? -- and another whose upside (?) is 20/280 ... you go with the former. That said, I can't find the options for: (Not enough information) (See if the kid's amenable to learning first base) (Hunt Other Teams With Numbers Problems At Other Positions) (Flip Reggie Rookie For Stud Starter) (Pay the Freight on Vic Veteran) and millions of other choices impossible to make in such a vacuum.

Elster88 Jan 19 2006 12:37 AM

Don't read too much into RBI.

Zvon Jan 19 2006 12:43 AM

Elster88 wrote: Don't read too much into RBI. You dont produce runs, especially when you need them, you dont win ball games. But Im not here to argue.

Elster88 Jan 19 2006 12:45 AM

Why not? Forums are for arguing. Producing runs (either RBI or runs) is too dependent on the others on your team. They are not a great indicator of individual performance.

Zvon Jan 19 2006 01:07 AM

Elster88 wrote: Why not? Forums are for arguing. Producing runs (either RBI or runs) is too dependent on the others on your team. They are not a great indicator of individual performance. lol. But an RBI dictates a direct contribution by an individual player. One that directly helps win games more so than say, a general batting average. RBIs are a good indicator of worth, imo. Up there on the list of what you want from a batter. Way up there.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 19 2006 02:32 AM

="Johnny Dickshot"] (Not enough information) (See if the kid's amenable to learning first base) (Hunt Other Teams With Numbers Problems At Other Positions) (Flip Reggie Rookie For Stud Starter) (Pay the Freight on Vic Veteran) and millions of other choices impossible to make in such a vacuum. Okay, here's where I pull out the "I dunno" card, because sometimes people who don't reallly know pull these these nebulous factors from a bodily orifice to rationalize their underlying philosophical choices, which is partly where I'm driving with this. In this case, let's say our best, most honest response is (Not enough information) There's never as much information as you want. I could give you more, but it's all a wash, near as I can tell. (See if the kid's amenable to learning first base) Don't matter. Your 1B-man's got a Delgado-sized contract, and Delgado-sized talent. No solutions there. (Hunt Other Teams With Numbers Problems At Other Positions) I've been doing this for months, and now it's January and everyone is refusing to talk unless I first agree that I'll eat most of his salary. Do you want me to agree to that, or keep looking for a deal? Meanwhile, what do I do with the players I've got? No deal seems imminent, or even makeable right now. (Flip Reggie Rookie For Stud Starter) (Pay the Freight on Vic Veteran) yeah, that's what I'm asking: Which one do you choose? and as to and millions of other choices impossible to make in such a vacuum, I'm specifying that each one gets you back unclear answers. One trusted scout tells you that the kid has a rag arm, but his equally trusted minor-league manager says you can definitely work on his throwing technique and get him up to Vic Vet's level and beyond in three weeks of Spring Training. You don't don't know which opinion will be more accurate. Like that. One of the reasons I'm asking this as a hypothetical is that in non-hypothetical terms, I often hear "Yah, but you don't KNOW that Reggie Rookie can play. They're only saying that to get other teams interested but really they know that Vic Vet is a stud and Reggie's a fake, yyybbbb." In this hypothetical I'm positing that as the GM it's your best advice and honest opinion that the kid has it. He's not Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds rolled into one, and he's not a sure thing, but then again nothing is. You've got to go with the best information you've got. I agree with your answer, btw. The kid's better right now? Then he plays and the vet sits. But that takes more guts than most teams have, doesn't it? They often use the other stuff, the stuff we as fans don't know and can't know, to cover their asses. Think how this equation gets easier to answer clearly if we specify, say, that Vic Vet's long-term deal was signed by your predessesor as GM, whom you despise, and you never thought as much of Vic Vet as he did, and he'll catch all the flak for having signed him in the first place--OR if we specify that you personally signed Vic Vet, you've been assuring people for three years that he's got a huge season left in him, yyybbb. Doesn't either one of those scenarios--that has zip to do with your evaluation of the talent on the field that was formerly a very tough call to make--make your answer blindingly obvious?

Nymr83 Jan 19 2006 07:52 AM

RBI are very, very team dependant and thus not a reliable indicator of a player's worth. yes the goal of the game is to drive in runs, but RBIs are not a good indicator of FUTURE RBIs, if you go from hitting 4th on the red sox to 4th on the brewers you couold have an even better year with less RBIs thanks to your teammates

seawolf17 Jan 19 2006 09:12 AM

I play the overpaid vet, at least one more year. Sure, the kid'll be frustrated, but since the vet's still producing numbers, then all those VET 36 t-shirts will still be sprinkled liberally through the crowd and flying off the shelves in my local Modell's, so I'll stick with him through this season and then see what happens.

RealityChuck Jan 19 2006 10:02 AM

It's a silly question, because it all depends on the vet and the kid. The only real way to look at the question is to ignore the issue of salary and ask yourself, "if both men were paid the same, who would you play?" You're paying for the vet whether he plays or sits, so if the kid is more worthy of play, then the vet sits or is traded. Now, you may want to play the vet to increase his trade value. But, given a real-world situation -- Matsui, for instance -- there is nothing wrong with playing someone like Kepplinger and having Matsui sit. It doesn't cost you anything more than the reverse, does it?

Elster88 Jan 19 2006 10:22 AM

It'll cost you some wins, but that's about it.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 19 2006 10:46 AM

Elster, to be clear, you're expressing the opinion that playing Keppinger specifically (and benching Matsui) would cost you wins, right, not the hypothetical example I raised? Just being clear, is all.

Elster88 Jan 19 2006 10:47 AM

Yes, I'm referring to Keppinger v. Matsui.

sharpie Jan 19 2006 10:58 AM

The player Bret is describing sounds like Shawn Green to me: 03 19-85-280 04 28-86-266 05 22-73-286

smg58 Jan 19 2006 11:16 AM

The D-Backs have Quentin and Conor Jackson ready now, but have seen to it that there's no place to put them. In that situation, I would most definitely go with the younger guys. I also think Keppinger would beat Matsui in a fair competition. I'm hoping Bret wasn't suggesting putting Victor Diaz ahead of Cliff Floyd. In the hypothetical situation Bret described, I think $8M per year would make the leftfielder dealable; $10M or more would be another story. If I can't deal one and don't want to deal the other, I'd make sure both players know going into spring training that the job is up for grabs. If Keppinger looks like the better player in February and March, it would not be in the Mets' interest to send him to Norfolk. The same goes for guys like Padilla and Heath Bell relative to the set-up guys the Mets have picked up in the offseason.

Elster88 Jan 19 2006 11:58 AM

He is a good singles hitter in AAA. I don't see what he has shown to make people think he will be anything more than a backup at the major league level. Maybe the same things people see in Anderson Hernandez? Last year he was the guy everyone wanted to play over Matsui, and his name is conspicuously absent from the 2B debates after only about 20 ML at-bats. I guess we're back to Keppinger in the grass is greener in AAA theories.

Edgy DC Jan 19 2006 12:21 PM

I thought it was Lambin's turn. Funny thing about Kep is that he did hit for power in college and his early pro career. Since then, he's been a consistent high-average hitter. I'd think, though, a career .314 / .367 / .420 // .787 suggests he should remain a part of the conversation. His seemingly successful .284 batting average as a 33-game big-leaguer in 2004 only translated to a .696 OPS, however. I'd expect one of the three to be traded before opening day (though perhaps not), to clear up the glut. If that happens, however, message boards will alight.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 19 2006 12:34 PM

Can't you guys keep out of this crazy mixed-up world of "tangible reality," as you call it, for five minutes? Can we please get back to my world of hypotheticals that exists only in our imaginations? Jeez.

RealityChuck Jan 19 2006 12:56 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Can't you guys keep out of this crazy mixed-up world of "tangible reality," as you call it, for five minutes? Can we please get back to my world of hypotheticals that exists only in our imaginations? Jeez. OK. In hypotheticals, you play whichever player is better. Or, to be more precise, whoever is more likely to help the team. You can also determine whether you need help in the long run or the present. Salary should not be a factor in the decision.

old original jb Jan 19 2006 03:16 PM Salary versus Seniority

Salary probably shouldn't be as much of a factor as it probably is, but seniority (which correlates with salary) is a factor. Seniority dictates that the veteran will expect to play more than the rookie, and that the veteran's trade value will be impacted more by benching than the rookie since others will have the same expectation. As for what to do, it probably depends what's in the pipeline and what potential trading partners want. The future value of the rookie is diminished if a glut of stars will be available at his position in two years via farm or free agency. Now is always more valuable than later, so whether you keep both, trade one or the other depends on what your other needs are now. If you are set at all other positions and have plenty of pitching, keep both. If not, trade--probably the rookie if you need certain current production to stay in a pennant chase and probably the veteran if your team's winning plan is on a four year time frame. But if you keep both, you probably have to play the veteran, and not because of salary but because of the seniority and track record it represents.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 19 2006 03:25 PM

Bear in mind, please, the terms of my hypothetical: your own staff (and your own self) concludes that [u:7cb0098a16]this season[/u:7cb0098a16] Reg Rook will outhit Vic Vet by a small but not insignificant margin. IOW, I can't believe you folks are choosing to lose a game or two because of money you've already spent, and that will remain spent in that way for the next few years AND are rationalizing it in the traditional terms that contradict the terms of the hypothesis I laid out so excruciatingly explicitly for you. You will believe what you've been conditioned to believe, whatever the case before you is, I guess. To me (and maybe to Reality Chuck and Johhny D.) it's not even a consideration to play the guy you think will have a worse season because you're paying him more money, he's got more experience, or whatever. He's a worse player, folks. You can sit him or you can sit the better player. Do you realize that you are opting to lose a game or two that you would otherwise have won? I'm lying down with a wet rag over my forehead for a little while now.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 19 2006 03:29 PM

I am shocked -- shocked! -- that this thread would end with someone getting a headache.

KC Jan 19 2006 03:48 PM

Alright, I admit that I voted vet just because I thought that Bret was agenda mongering again.

Nymr83 Jan 19 2006 03:59 PM

KC wrote: Alright, I admit that I voted vet just because I thought that Bret was agenda mongering again. i figured out right away that this could not have been Mets-related as any pro-diaz agenda would be anti-nady not anti-floyd (i'd hope.)

Willets Point Jan 19 2006 03:59 PM

KC wrote: Alright, I admit that I voted vet just because I thought that Bret was agenda mongering again. You mean he isn't?

seawolf17 Jan 19 2006 04:06 PM

I just do what KC implores me to do.

metsmarathon Jan 19 2006 04:36 PM

"Bear in mind, please, the terms of my hypothetical: your own staff (and your own self) concludes that this season Reg Rook will outhit Vic Vet by a small but not insignificant margin." see, now, you never explicitly said this. yeah, yeah, i could infer it if i wanted to, but "downside" sound more sketchy than claiming to know. if i know in my heart of hearts that the kid will outhit the vet, and my staff agrees with me, then i prolly play him. i mean, he's better right? if you're breaking even, then you consider playing the vet. if the kid will lose you games by comparison, then, of course, he sits.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 19 2006 04:38 PM

KC wrote: Alright, I admit that I voted vet just because I thought that Bret was agenda mongering again. Or because you wanted to screw me up but some mysterious force just wouldn't allow you to hit the "rookie" button? My agenda was, if anything, to show how perniciously hard it is to let go of the line of crap clubs (not just the Mets) try to support their CYA policies with. I was surprised that the voting was as strong as it was in that direction. More than that, I guessed that this might be a tough call for some (not me nor Chuck nor JD) that got much easier once I introduced some of the personal (but perfectly irrelevant) ego and turf issues of who was responsible for Vic Vet's contract, you (the GM) or Arnie Asshole, your predessessor and mortal enemy as ex-GM. But I wasn't trying to show anything specific at all about Kaz/Kepp, Piazza/Wilson-Phillips, Cameron/Diaz or Ashburn/Hickman. You may, of course, continue to treat my posts with suspicion and contempt and respond to them with all appropriate hostility that an agenda-bearing maniac deserves. I wish once in a while you'd tell me what my agenda is, though. It's hard to know what's on your mind sometimes.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 19 2006 05:00 PM

="metsmarathon"]"Bear in mind, please, the terms of my hypothetical: your own staff (and your own self) concludes that this season Reg Rook will outhit Vic Vet by a small but not insignificant margin." see, now, you never explicitly said this. yeah, yeah, i could infer it if i wanted to, but "downside" sound more sketchy than claiming to know. if i know in my heart of hearts that the kid will outhit the vet, and my staff agrees with me, then i prolly play him. i mean, he's better right? if you're breaking even, then you consider playing the vet. if the kid will lose you games by comparison, then, of course, he sits. I suppose I could have drawn you a picture, but I really can't make it much plainer, mm than "he's hit a fairly steady .280 for you over the first three years of the deal, averaged 20 HRs per year, like that. Let's say he throws lefthanded, and that your CFer, RFer, and IBman (the three positions a lefthanded outfielder might be moved to) are all signed up longterm, and you're perfectly happy with them, so changing his position is out of the question. Last season you brought up a kid to be your 4th outfielder, and while he didn't have quite the arm for RF or the range for CF you'd like to see (if you even had a spot for this kid in RF or CF) he's at least as good defensively as Mr.. 280/20. Your talent-evaluators (and your eyes) tell you that this kid's DOWNSIDE offensively is something like .280/20. His upside is batting champ/HR leader, and the most likely scenario has him putting up annual numbers like 25 HRs/.300 average. In other words, not only is this kid far cheaper than your incumbent LFer, he's probably a better player." I can't tell you that it's a lock that the kid will outhit the vet, because that's never the case. I can tell you, and I did, the exact consistent level of performance this veteran has given you for the past three years. If you want to claim that it's a giant leap of faith for you to conclude that those numbers represent his true level of performance, I'd classify that as "your problem." Do you think I'm being very subtle when I then give you numbers that express clearly that the vet's level of performance are the downside (in CAPS, mind you) of his projected year, and give you numbers that represent his probable performance that are several integers higher? I don't how you could possibly claim I was less than clear that the kid was a better hitter. Since I specified that the vet had no defensive advantages, "he's probably a better player" all but spells it out for you. But if you refuse to see what's in front of you, I guess that's part of my point here.

KC Jan 19 2006 05:18 PM

>>>It's hard to know what's on your mind sometimes<<< Right back at ya.

metsmarathon Jan 20 2006 02:27 PM

well, ya said the kid's downside was the vets expected performance. i interpreted that as the kids downside for his career, not for the upcoming season. as in, "ultimately, the worst this kid can do is what the vet is giving you right now," not, "the worst this kid can do for you next year is what you'd already be getting from the vet." it makes a difference to me. sorry. i'm in the middle of spec-hell over here, and am getting myself hung up on little words and exceptions to such. sue me. also, i once heard that if the reader misunderstnads what the writer writes, the onus is not on the reader to get inside the head of the writer, rather for the writer to more clearly state his position. but i'm just being a pain in the ass on this one point. i stated my initial position, and given clearer set of information, i've revised my position. i think my reasoning is consistent given each set of information.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 20 2006 07:09 PM

That's usually my position, too: if I write something, and you haven't understood my point, then I did something wrong. In this case, where I was striving to risk over-explaining the ground situation because I knew that I could be accused of withholding crucial information, I will take a "Bite Me" exception.

Zvon Jan 21 2006 12:02 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: "I know I've got a bad reputation, And it isn't just talk, talk, talk..." --T.S. Eliot Bret, Your sig.... is that really TS Eliot? Or a line from Freedy Johnsons "Bad Reputaion". Or both? (Sheesh,-----------the things that Zvon wonders about.......)

Bret Sabermetric Jan 21 2006 05:34 AM

Zvon wrote: Your sig.... is that really TS Eliot? Or a line from Freedy Johnsons "Bad Reputaion" Nah, that's just my sense of humor there. It's Freedy, of course. (Many CPFers are FJ fans, and would recognize it.) Prolly time to change the sig already, anyway.