1
Sorry - first time doing a page 1, and didn't notice it didn't auto-fill my name.
Walmart or Bloomingdales?
Where you shop matters. As Meatloaf warbled, "There ain't no Coup de Ville hiding at the bottom of a Cracker Jack Box". The same can be said of baseball talent. EVERY organization has strengths and weaknesses, and it is important to understand what they are when you go shopping for talent.
Seattle, for most of the past decade, has been a closer factory, churning out quality closers and setup men, (turned closer elsewhere), at an incredible rate. Franklin, Sherrill, Soriano, Putz, just to name a few. But, at the same time, the club hasn't developed a decent hitter from scratch since about the Reagan Administration. (Lopez may finally be ending that drought this year).
So, when you pick up players from a given team, it is important to understand the strengths and minuses of that organization, because they have a direct bearing on the up and/or down-side of your acquisitions. St. Louis has been turning scrap metal pitchers into All Stars for ages. I'm not talking about picking up someone with uber-talent like Carpenter and seeing him blossom. I'm talking about running away with your division with Joel Pineiro and Kyle Loshe as rotation fixtures and Franklin as your closer. St. Louis KNOWS how to get the most out of a pitcher.
So, what does that mean when shopping. It means don't go anywhere near an ex-Card hurler. Because there is ZERO upside. The chance of having a Cardinals pitcher being as good for your team as he was for them is close to nil. But, if you're bargain shopping, and want to get talent cheaper, which has upside, then where do you look? You look for teams that have a history of taking talent and watching it degrade with the team, (and then re-emerge elsewhere).
Enter the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Pirates have buried more pitchers than Mount Vesuvius. The last bright spot for Pirate pitching was probably the last time they were in the playoffs, (Bonds was playing LF for them, and Tim Wakefield was a rookie going 8-1). Some wonderful Pirate pitchers who stumbled in Pittsburgh. (Some went on to have some success elsewhere - others were permanently vanguished):
(Final season with Pirates in parens)
- John Lieber ('98)
- Jason Schmidt ('01)
- Kris Benson ('04)
- Josh Fogg ('05)
- Oliver Perez ('06)
- Zach Duke ('09)
- Paul Maholm ('09)
- Tom Gorzelanny ('09)
- Ian Snell ('09)
The thing that almost all of these pitchers have in common is that regardless of the production level they began at, over time they got progressively worse. For those with time elsewhere, there was often marked improvement with other clubs.
That said, leaving Pittsburgh is not a guarantee of success, and it may take a season or two removed from Iron City to fix whatever it is that the club is doing to break its pitchers. As noted by many late night sales pitchers -- "individual results may vary". But, the simple truth of the matter is that Ex-Pirate pitchers have UPSIDE.
In truth, for most of the 21st century, Seattle was a club with a sadly similar track record. Rookies would pop up, show promise, fizzle, leave, and shine. Meche and Pineiro are the most recent export success stories. But, under the Z regime, Felix has blossomed, Washburn bounced back, RRS is looking solid. So, there's SOME evidence that Seattle has altered course with its own pitcher-development problems. (But with every Z pitching import outside of Aardsma being a disappointment, it's way too early to start the victory dance).
For the future, however, it means that Snell has upside. But, going from an org that makes pitchers worse, to an org that HAS made pitchers worse, also ... well, it leaves lots of room for concern. Given the park, Seattle SHOULD be a destination for pitchers to come and revive their careers, not try to destroy them, (nice seein' ya, Horam and Weaver). Given the Pirate history for squashing pitchers like bugs, Z has likely done about all he could to get a pitcher with the potential to really bust out and prove something. But, it takes time to undo YEARS of damage. It would be a mistake to read too much into what Snell does the rest of the way (Good AND Bad), because the reset of a fresh season, and a chance to get "prepared" to succeed, (instead of prepared to flounder for 2 months and sink to last place), is going to make for a very different paradigm for young Mr. Snell.
Comments
2
I thought it was you. : )
You may be right with the notion of orgs being particularly good at generating certain kinds of talent. What I wonder though, is this just coincidence? Or, is it tied to organizational philosophy? Or is it the result of a very small number of key people - coaches, managers, scouts, or execs - with each team that has a particular gift for seeing/developing certain talent?
Inquiring minds want to know.
3
Thought I recognized the writing style. Nice job Sandy - as usual.
I've liked Snell for some time and love his upside. In a 20-team mega dynasty league my brother and I run on Yahoo, we had an interesting draft going into this past season. For contextual purposes, the roster size is 25 MLB plus 9 prospects. You can keep up to 17 MLB guys and up to 9 prospects. We have an 8-round draft. My brother and I played for the title last season and I lost, so I had pick #19, he had pick #20. The mega prospects from the amateur draft the year before and international signings are always the first to go, leaving usually some quality major leaguers on the table. After the first 17 or so picks, I saw Snell coming my way, and had analyzed my brother's team (you know where this is going). Draft picks are tradeable in our league, so engineered a trade that added a 3rd rounder for me and I dropped one spot to #20.
Yep. You guessed it...my bro picked Snell, who was my target all along. I would love to see him get a real shot with the M's. I don't know what his contract status is - but I would bet Z had Snell on the radar for a long time. Since he agrees with me, of course I like his position.
4
Organizational results are rarely easy to track back to an obvious source. Outsiders know next to nothing, (or nothing), about scouts, lower level coaches, etc. And the "name" people turn over regularly, (especially for poor clubs). But, as a general tenet, decisions and competence flow downward. The better your top people, the greater chance you'll choose competent people below you, etc., etc.
If you have an owner who is incompetent AND a meddler, you've got major problems. Even if he's churning his GM and Manager routinely, much of the organization responds to HIS wants, because people are generally more concerned about keeping their job than doing it right, (and yes, I know how idiotic than sounds).
In most cases, I think it is a case of organizational philosophy leading to repeating the same mistake, because the powers that be are unable to accept data contrary to their beliefs. THEORY: "You must have big bats to win pennants". RESPONSE: "You draft sluggers, acquire sluggers, and maybe even tailor your park to aid sluggers." RESULT: "You lose, ranking last in ERA." CONCLUSION: "We need MORE sluggers."
That above is hyperbole, but likely too true in too many cases. The belief that if a little is good a lot will be fantastic permeates the human condition. Seattle under Bavasi seemed to become absolutely paranoid about hitter Ks. The club drafted these low k free swingers, promoted them, went out and got them on the open market, and led the world in fewest hitter Ks. They also were near last in run production.
Today, there's a new GM and Manager. So, a new "type" of player is being recruited. But, how many guys throughout the org are believers in the old philosophy? I don't know. How many scouts who were INSTRUCTED to look for this type of hitter are now getting a different set of instructions? Again, I don't know. I don't think anyone outside the organization knows.
Moneyball was instructive on many levels. One was the often contentious relationship between the GM and the scouts. The scouts and coaches do have beliefs of their own. But, when directives come from above, each person must incorporate the new directives into their personal belief systems. As with all things, some will perform better than others. And Sports in general, and baseball specifically, have long been VERY inbred organizations. When you get an entire organization buying into something that doesn't work, problems can last a long, long time. The problem usually persists because of beginning assessments with thoughts like, "Well, we know the problem can't be X ..." So, you have to attribute problems to something else, sending your crew into the rigging to mend the sails, while water continues to pour into the hold from the gaping hole in the side of the ship from the reef you have run aground on.