SI: Beinfest Game's 4th Best GM....Errr...President of BBO

[Beef]

Well you lost one top 5 hitter in the game and gained another. So I guess so.

But we knew Miggs was a top 5 hitter and we did not know Hanley was

[Metes]

But we knew Miggs was a top 5 hitter and we did not know Hanley was

It don't matter to Jesus! Results.

[nny]

Cabrera for Kemp, Loney, and Billingsley, but frankly my "memory" of this is just that nny's mentioned it a bunch of times, so it's as accurate as that.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...2007&fext=.jsp

"The Dodgers tried to pry Cabrera away from the Marlins last summer when they discussed a deal that would have sent Matt Kemp, James Loney and Chad Billingsley to Florida, but the Marlins balked."

Not that a mlb.com article has 100% chance of being accurate which is why I try to always put "if true." Should be noted that the Dodgers then would send Carlos Santana to the Indians for Casey LOL Blake.

[Bobbob1313]

It don't matter to Jesus! Results.

That's the problem with playing that game, though.

I'm not sure he should get extra credit for the Hanley deal, but if we're playing the results on the Cabrera deal, then we have to play the results on everything or else there's really no point in discussing anything.
--------------------

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...2007&fext=.jsp

"The Dodgers tried to pry Cabrera away from the Marlins last summer when they discussed a deal that would have sent Matt Kemp, James Loney and Chad Billingsley to Florida, but the Marlins balked."

Not that a mlb.com article has 100% chance of being accurate which is why I try to always put "if true." Should be noted that the Dodgers then would send Carlos Santana to the Indians for Casey LOL Blake.

But we don't know if they were willing to make that trade in the offseason.

So then are we criticizing him for not trading him at the deadline? It feels like we keep changing the bounds of the debate.

There's so much we don't know. Maybe Loria wouldn't let him make the trade at the deadline? Maybe Loria gave him the impression that he could keep one of Willis or Cabrera at the time and then changed his mind in the offseason. Maybe the Dodgers said "Well, I'm not going to lose three guys who have proven it now" after the season?

[Ramp]

Bostick/Vargas for Lindstrom/Owens.... this was a good deal
Resop/Gregg.... also good

even though I dislike Beinfest tons, these were very nice deals

[nny]

So then are we criticizing him for not trading him at the deadline? It feels like we keep changing the bounds of the debate.

My criticism of not taking that deal has always been not taking it at the deadline, since we should have known then that we were trading Cabs in the offseason

There's so much we don't know. Maybe Loria wouldn't let him make the trade at the deadline? Maybe Loria gave him the impression that he could keep one of Willis or Cabrera at the time and then changed his mind in the offseason.

That's a rather weak argument when I never state matter of factly of anything we do not know, all we have are our assumptions on anything that goes on in that FO and any FO.
--------------------

Bostick/Vargas for Lindstrom/Owens.... this was a good deal
Resop/Gregg.... also good

even though I dislike Beinfest tons, these were very nice deals

I agree they were good moves but they were minor moves and the argument is major moves. Even Dayton Moore and Omar Minaya have made good minor moves.

[Bobbob1313]

My criticism of not taking that deal has always been not taking it at the deadline, since we should have known then that we were trading Cabs in the offseason

Then I don't disagree with that specific criticism. If that's what was offered at the deadline and we knew we were going to trade him, that's a big miss.

[wanks1212]

We also harp on teh Julio signing, becuase it fucking sucked, but don't forget about Beinfest signing Todd Jones and Armando Benitez on the cheap and getting excellent seasons out of them at the closer position.

Of course, he didn't offer them arby, which kinda hurts, but I can at least see some of the logic behind not offering a closer who just had one bang-up year after a few shitty ones arby.

[nny]

who's that in your avatar

[wanks1212]

Megan Fox

[Ramp]

agreed nny, was just pointing those 2 out

still dislike Larry Lots

[nny]

Toe Thumb girl!
--------------------
I wonder if toe thumb's are, like, the greatest thing every for people with feet fetishes

it's like a foot

ON THEIR HANDS

[lou]

lou, what's troubling is that you'll tell sports writers they should have been aborted, yet when you cannot do anything to defend your sycophantic and absurdly optimistic ways you defer to the same profession who now feature a preponderance of "people smarter than you." It's even more troubling that most intelligent people (whether they are "smarter than you" or not) realize what they have in a sportswriter: opinion. Additionally, what intelligent people realize, is that opinions are just that, opinions. However, this is of course something you struggle with. It is your opinion that we're winning the 2012 pennant, just like it was your opinion we won the 2009 and 2010 World Series (I'll see you on opening day for the banner ceremony!). Again, given your track record, it's not surprising that opinions about a hypothetical future (so long as there are lollipops and rainbows in that future) really aren't opinions at all, they're absolutely indisputable presentations of fact.

The other thing that's problematic is that you are making a huge and fallacious assumption: namely, that baseball front offices put as much weight into baseball america as you as a fan do.

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you really are actively demonstrating these guys are smarter than you. Do NFL teams run their big board based on Mel Kiper? Do MLB teams not employ scouts? Wait, they do...and what do they pay those scouts for? To scout players! Really? What does that entail? Evaluating a player's future? You don't say! Doesn't baseball-america provide the same service all for the low low price of $29.99? I just can't imagine that a baseball team that has a scouting budget would even bother with advance scouts and regional scouts when baseball america does it all for them for under $30. Hell, they even do the draft too. Maybe you should tell the Marlins they're doing it all wrong and can save assloads of cash, too.

So, lou, to say that because BA valued them this highly does not mean two things: (1) They were right and (2) That was the prevailing opinion among MLB front offices. That is too tremendous of a conclusion to make, but one I'm sure you're happy to have believed given that it was a future full of farting out rainbows.

Actually, you're the one who doesn't support any of your arguments. But I mean, keep the red herring defenses going as usually. Thank god NNY is here to atleast present the counterpoint for you.

There is a big difference between BA, BP, and the Sun Sentinel for one. Two, can you stop making these exaggerate claims of myself declaring them 162-0 and pennant championships. All I believe is, the blueprint of where this organization is going is in the right direction and has been for years despite unfortunate setbacks to do injuries and payroll. And if you want to predict every single starter except Johnson fails, and all the high profile minor league kids don't work, I mean good for you. Nearly every scout out there disagrees, but hey I guess those people don't have a basis of knowledge to draw from compared to you watching a game. It's just an opinion and they all weigh equal even if some are well more informed than others.

There is no fallacious argument about BA and baseball front offices. You really don't get it. As fans, we don't have access to the inner workings of front offices so the only way to form a reasonable opinion of anything is through using the best information made available. What that is, is the premier sources such as BA, BP, the better sports writers like Gammons and Rosenthal, any verified reports and comments from a GM or whoever, etc. Or how about, players being drafted in certain slots and getting major league deals. If you go in the Top 10, you're not he only franchise that values a player that high. Just because, if we use as a case study with Maybin/Miller, that the evidence OVERWHELMINGLY conflicts with your opinion, doesn't mean you can simply discredit the source of information because it is not the word of god from the top executive of every ballclub. These are very reputable person and sources even if it's not a transcript of Beinfest, Hill, and Fleming chatting about a guy. Why don't you try and answer an assertion instead of putting on a show. Because calling me rainbows and cupcakes is surely discrediting how 99% of everyone viewed those prospects in 2007. Which is very powerful in determining how good/bad the GM's rationale for the move was.
--------------------

The problem is like Swift said. Give Beinfest a budget and how many Julio's get signed to big contracts because they throw in the mid 90's? Is Beinfest hampered by payroll, or helped by it? All the bodies are brought in and sorted out now because we have to find someone to make 400k and be productive. When Beinfest is going to have the chance of buying a player, who's he going to go after, the undervalued under-appreciated players (Cody/Uggla/Baker/ect) or the overvalued overrated players? Considering his track record, I'm certainly real scared. That's something we'll eventually see.

Right, we'll eventually see it and I've never gone against this point. While you are scared, I am cautiously optimistic. I'll explain myself in brief. Cody/Uggla/Baker were all brought in at CC prices, so I guess your argument is, he will sign bonehead players to 3+ year deals just because he likes them. First, I think it's clearly evident he will NOT give longterm contracts to relievers regardless of payroll. Look at Johnson. Swift could be right that maybe the front office had to have it's arm twisted to give him the 4th year and it was not a negotiation ploy (admitting for purpose or argument), but how when given a "clear" decision to sign Johnson at this stage in the game for 4 years would they ever do something like give a street Julio 3 years just because he throws hard? I wouldn't be worried about him over spending on pitchers at all. And I define overspending, on something more than a 1 year deal because if money comes off the books, all is forgotten really. It's a waste of money, but it isn't organization depilating like giving Justin Speier $20 million dollars. I see them continuing to draft heavy with pitching and trying to make a home grown staff, and in the event they need another SP or RP, sign them to smaller deals (like the Braves with Wagner/Saito) where it's money for this year and no more. Based on the track record, I see this as reasonable. They are not into building around FA pitchers.

As for the hitters, I kind of see the same thing happening. I think, let's hypothesize Dominguez is fucking horrible in 2010, they would do something like give Cantu/Inge/Feliz/etc level free agent a 1-3 year deal to hold down the fort until they can find a better longterm option. Would that be a bad deal even if it's $4-7 annually respective of which name is signed? I don't think that would be, even if for the 2002-2009 Marlins, that would be CRAZY to guarantee that kind of money to a barely adequate starting player.

There is a difference to me with spending money wildly, and spending money if you have it. A great example

Ben Sheets, $10 million.

That's CRAZY in a vacuum. But Beane had the money, did not want anyone else because he believes in his defensive-centric outfielders, Barton, Kouz, Ellis, Fox, Suzuki, and bullpen, so he makes a 1 year splash on Sheets. Would you, or Swift, be pissed if the Marlins were to do something like that just because they want even 150 innings and a potential trade candidate if non-contending? I see Beinfest doing THAT. Reference-Leiter. Maybe it doesn't work out, but I have no problem with that kind of move because that doesn't set you back like giving Nate Robertson $21 million over 3 years.

I just don't see this as a big deal moving forward, but we'll see whose right come 2012-2015 and we get a few years sample size of GM moves with a north of $40 million payroll.

"All the Moves"

Just going to address a few of the bigger ones, as we're basically on the same page with most of them and just a little pushing back and forth.

I don't think I'm overrating the massive Preston/Hampton salary dump. That got us out of serious money to like you said, then led to other moves to build a team. Clearing the books with great, and really you have to account hindsight bias into it at some point and give him credit for 2003 (and things like, lowering the Lee/Choi deal and the Cabrera/Maybin/Miller/Willis deal even if those trades were "good on paper" at the time of deal).

Urbina. Gonzalez was BA # 31 in 2003, Stokes # 15. I don't want to make the argument that we only needed one going forward so let's just ship out the other for whatever we could get, but I mean, that's kind of what happened. I'm only disappointed they could not see how Gonzalez would be better than Stokes, and feel free to knock them on that point as that is a SERIOUS talent evaluation problem, but when you're contending I can understand how all sanity goes out the window. Maybe this is a bullshit cop out, but I mean I just can't get angry even if they lose Game 7 of the world series to New York. Also, Gonzalez had a .777 OPS in AA, .574 OPS in AAA in 2003. He was 21, young for the levels, but that's not exactly ripping shit.

About Delgado, I don't think you overpay for a superstar like that on a smaller 4/$52 pact or whatever it was. To talk about prior point, I'd be more worried about a 7/$100 pact to a fatso like Carlos Lee who is really really good, but not superstar money level. Also, given the market of baseball at the time, in a worst case scenario you could easily move him. If THIS is the kind of deal you/swift are worried about, I just have to respectfully say I don't think that's a bad contract. Yea he was 33 so maybe in the future you try to limit that to 2-3 years versus the 4, but he also survived that contract with .981-.909-.781-.871 OPS years and I would have said that even without the bias because he's just a slugger and they can do that as they are dependent on their speed to succeed. This doesn't make me angry like the Penny/Dodgers trade, because that was just mind numbing. THAT'S where I start getting mad at the GM.

If you want to call the Hanley deal a push, sure. But again, if I'm evaluating the GM, I only get mad at negative moves, not lateral (as in, exchanging value 1-1 for a position in need, etc) or positive moves. I see no criticism at time of trade, or especially now, for this deal. Also have to remember, this cleared out a ton of cash with Lowell which granted, we didn't need to do since payroll dipped to $20 million overall (but that is Loira, NOT Beinfest. Beinfest plays with the hand dealt to him and I appreciate what he does with it, with moves like this).

Sure, Castillo and Leiter were bad. Missed them, even though I'd place them as moderate deals, if we want to place them in major I don't think it's inappropriate.

I just don't see this nearly as bad as you guys do. Even if more are pushes like you say so maybe it's 25% good, 50% push, 25% bad, that's still not bad, and then when we add hindsight in after all of the "trade on paper" arguments, the fact that Hanley turned into Hanley and we won the 2003 world series is going to tip this to him every time.

Maybin was an extremely bipolar thought of prospect they could have crashed out very easily. He was extremely risky and we're looking like we're going to bank as of now with his fixed strike out rates. And the caveat for Miller has ALWAYS been "no control now, maybe he learns it when he's 29 like RJ." I'm sure a few people thought that of both of them but you're ignoring the mass.

I remember Maybin having maturity issues, but I mean he was 20. I do not remember the risky as that was always a "when" question with him, not an "if" question. I think "when" happens in 2010 or 2011. I think everyone knew he was going to need AA, and some time in AAA. As for Miller, all I'd argue is 25 not 29.

Which again, even characterizing it as THAT, is still not "right now" which I get, but let's look at the 2007 Marlins. If you're trading Cabrera and Willis, and have a litany of pitchers coming back off injury, is it preferable to get players RIGHT NOW to not contend, or to get players who will help in 2010-2014. Sure, they botched Miller by not keeping him in AA/AAA for a full year, but I don't have a problem with who they got here. The only reason I take the hypothetical Dodgers trade (Kemp deal offered midseason, see "all rationality thrown out of the window Urbina argument," not in the offseason) in the offseason is because you get Loney too, as he clearly would be a much stronger value than Cruz/Trahern (your pick who was more valuable). But it's not because I'm scared of the volatility of Maybin/Miller. They were legit. And really, kind of still are as no one is going to be surprised if Maybin is this years Adam Jones and Miller eventually becomes something, even if that isn't RJ.
--------------------

Yep. Results matter.

They do, and don't for this discussion.

It's important to have a solid PROCESS in what you are doing, and not just wildly sign guys like Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones, and trade Carlos Santana for Casey Blake. I think it's clearly demonstrable the Marlins have a very solid process. Beinfest may not excel in any one area, like say the Freidman (rays) with drafting one hell of a superstar team, but in every area, Beinfest is average or above average and that adds up into one pretty damn good GM.

And then when you play the outcome, I don't think it's an argument because of 2003, and the all acquisition team featuring Hanley, Uggla, Nolasco, etc the next 10 names we always spout out. Cabrera hurts, but like you said. He exchanged one superstar for another, has a world series, and is fielding high potential competitive teams even if they are missing a piece or three a larger salary would allow us to get.

[nny]

I don't think I'm overrating the massive Preston/Hampton salary dump. That got us out of serious money to like you said, then led to other moves to build a team. Clearing the books with great, and really you have to account hindsight bias into it at some point and give him credit for 2003 (and things like, lowering the Lee/Choi deal and the Cabrera/Maybin/Miller/Willis deal even if those trades were "good on paper" at the time of deal).

We didn't dump much salary though. We payed Hampton 500k more than CJ's contract, and Preston only made a few mil per year more than JP (Both were in arbitration). It was signing Pudge that made the deal great (And you certainly have to assume it was Pudge that got them to do the deal, as Pudge obviously > CJ. So if they were going to sign Pudge, they needed to clear room at C).

About Delgado, it was not a monster of a bad contract, I'm not worried about him giving "those" kind of things out. But it was not "Awesome." He payed at best going rate for a player of Delgado's caliber, except Delgado was also old and so him declining like he did was far from being far fetched. It wasn't a good contract.

I just don't see this nearly as bad as you guys do. Even if more are pushes like you say so maybe it's 25% good, 50% push, 25% bad, that's still not bad, and then when we add hindsight in after all of the "trade on paper" arguments, the fact that Hanley turned into Hanley and we won the 2003 world series is going to tip this to him every time.

My point isn't "Beinfest is bad", I don't know if he's bad or not. My point is, if he's so good at minor moves, since Cody/Uggla/Baker are always brought up about how good he is, then if that's "skill", why hasn't he been so good at major moves? I think that likely Cody/Uggla/Baker/ect aren't "skill" but rather throwing out the biggest net you can and see if you can catch any fish even though you'll mostly get boots. And that's because he's in the position to do that. With a budget, he's no longer able to do that, his first choice has to be starters.

I remember Maybin having maturity issues, but I mean he was 20. I do not remember the risky as that was always a "when" question with him, not an "if" question. I think "when" happens in 2010 or 2011. I think everyone knew he was going to need AA, and some time in AAA. As for Miller, all I'd argue is 25 not 29.

The problems with Maybin weren't really maturity issues, I'm talking as a prospect. There was the incredibly high strike out rates and the incredibly high ground ball rates, which leads extremely high # of IF hits. Prudents thought once he hit MLB, lots of those GB and IF hits would turn into outs with superior defense, and obviously when you're striking out as much as he was back then there's some serious contact issues.

His GB rates are still a problem but they won't completely hinder him as a hitter, he just won't be a monster. The biggest Q was strike outs and he made great strides in that area last year.

[Bobbob1313]

I think most GMs make a lot of boneheaded mistakes, we are just very familiar with Beinfest so it's easy to get caught up on them. That doesn't excuse his mistakes, but it helps to put his performance into context.

We would probably mostly agree that Dombrowski is a better GM than Beinfest, right? He's made some colossally bad moves in recent years too. I would say his Renteria trade is worse than anything Beinfest has done, all things considered. But I suppose when you've got the chance to trade two top 100 prospects for 31 year old Edgar Renteria in the last year of a 10 mil per year contract, you've got to take that.

Beinfest is not perfect. Nobody is. Theo isn't. Freidman isn't. But relative to the league, Beinfest is a good GM.