Beinfest Unhappy?

[Bobbob1313]

Bringing up "Stokes vs. Adrian" in a discussion criticizing Beinfest seems really silly to me.

Stokes was the higher rated prospect prior to '03 and his production was good. Gonzalez was a year ahead of him, but there were questions about his power potential.

Stokes couldnt' stay healthy, and Gonzalez made absolutely insane across the board improvements in his game that I don't think anyone reasonably expected.

[Swifty]

It's absolutely fair. A team with the known budgetary condtraits we've had/have cannot be consistently wrong with "star" evaluation. And they certainly can't just say "c'mon, like I knew that'd happen!"
--------------------
One off is fine, a growing history is not.

[Bobbob1313]

When faced with one thing that you can't really judge (process) and one you definitely can (results), which do you go with?

If you go by process, then you're basically resigned to saying, "It's impossible to evaluate his performance."

I don't think it's impossible to evaluated his or any GMs performance, but I don't think you can eschew the process for the results completely. You can judge based on what is known at the time of the process and also by the outcome.

I think most of us would agree that Bonifacio and Infante were not great returns on the trades the Marlins made. And yet Bonifacio has been more valuable this season than Josh Willingham and Scott Olsen combined, and Infante has been worth double what Uggla has this year by WAR. Do we ignore our reactions at the time? Or do we try to weigh our thoughts given what we knew at the time (Bonifacio was a poor talent in return, but given Willingham's balky back and Olsen's decreasing velocity, etc.), with the results?

Do we give Beinfest credit for Bonifacio's development or Uggla's horrible 3.5 month stretch, or is that a product of luck?
--------------------

It's absolutely fair. A team with the known budgetary condtraits we've had/have cannot be consistently wrong with "star" evaluation. And they certainly can't just say "c'mon, like I knew that'd happen!"

You're trying too hard with this one.

Nobody could have ever reasonably expected that Gonzalez, who at the time of the trade had 16 doubles and 2 HRs in 300+ ABs in 03 (including a .573 OPS in AAA), would become Rafael Palmiero. Or that Jason Stokes would hurt his back and never be able to play regularly again after 04. Yes, Gonzalez was young and coming off a wrist injury, but there were real questions about his ability to hit enough for first base.

This is what I mean by ignoring the process and playing the results 100%. Essentially, what you're saying is "Beinfest is an idiot because Jason Stokes got hurt."

[Swifty]

You've framed the question unfairly.

The question should be why is Bonifacio here? Why is Uggla not here? Not - did Beinfest develop them?

Those players (Bonifacio, Infante) were at a stage when they were acquired that you knew what you were getting, and in the case of Infant you certainly knew.

You credit Beinfest for getting what he felt the team needed (live arm, defensively reliable hitter) fault Beinfest for undervaluing Willingham and over valuing speed and fault him because both aforementioned moves represented a fractional return of value (though Uggla was what it was and I think I'd make that trade again if given the choice).

[Bobbob1313]

So in those instances we "knew" at the time, and it's fair to judge by what we knew then. It is acceptable to simply say they represented a fraction value of return, no matter what the actual baseball related oucome is?

But with Gonzalez, what we knew at the time is worthless; all that matters is what nobody could have known?

[Swifty]

Bob if you don't see the difference between Adrian Gonzalez in 2003 and his level of development (and what still need to be projected by people who are paid to do such things) and Omar Infante in 2011, this has nothing else to be added.

[Bobbob1313]

Bob if you don't see the difference between Adrian Gonzalez in 2003 and his level of development (and what still need to be projected by people who are paid to do such things) and Omar Infante in 2011, this has nothing else to be added.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You got it. They're exactly the same.

[Swifty]

No they're not. One had been in the bigs for multiple seasons, the other was in AA.

Seriously.

[Bobbob1313]

Nope. You read everything I said correctly and continue to do so. There was no difference between the two.

[Swifty]

Yep.

[Bobbob1313]

Cool, I'm glad this went somewhere good.

[Valid]

If we evaluate him based on what conventional thinking was at the time, how would he be any better than anyone of us in that position?

That's a very silly way of looking at it, in my opinion. You're just playing the result.

Maybin and Miller were highly-touted prospects among everyone in baseball at that time. Chances are, any other front office guy in Beinfest's position makes that deal and comes away happy with it because they would be getting two guys who looked like they had blue-chip talent.

How Maybin and Miller turned out has absolutely no bearing on Beinfest's view of the trade at the time. It's not like he traded Cabrera for Bryan Petersen and Chris Seddon.

If you want to judge Beinfest's performance as a whole based on some of the other trades/signings he has made (and didn't make) in recent years, fine, but using the Cabrera trade as an example of how "bad" he has been is just not the right way to go about it.
--------------------

You absolutely can be judged in hindsight. What the trade may have looked like at the time to many people is irrelevant. You're not a good GM is you make moves that seem good at the time; you're a good GM if you make moves that look good 5 years later.

I can sum this post up in one statement: good GMs are lucky; bad GMs are unlucky.

That's essentially what you're saying.

[Omar]

That's a very silly way of looking at it, in my opinion. You're just playing the result.

Which is how the world works, for the record.

They don't play the games in abstract models.

[Erick]

Getting Anibal instead of Papelbon was a mistake?

Yeah, didn't really get that comment either.
--------------------

I'm all for giving Mike Stanton a contract extension, but goodness it's premature to talk about him as a core player.

If Mike Stanton is not a core player, there's no such thing as a core player.
--------------------

You've framed the question unfairly.

The question should be why is Bonifacio here? Why is Uggla not here? Not - did Beinfest develop them?

Those players (Bonifacio, Infante) were at a stage when they were acquired that you knew what you were getting, and in the case of Infant you certainly knew.

You credit Beinfest for getting what he felt the team needed (live arm, defensively reliable hitter) fault Beinfest for undervaluing Willingham and over valuing speed and fault him because both aforementioned moves represented a fractional return of value (though Uggla was what it was and I think I'd make that trade again if given the choice).

Funny you should say that.

Last I checked, Beinfest was forced to trade Cabrera at the time and he ended up getting a player who projected as a 5-tool CF'er and a live, lefty arm. Both were among the top prospects in baseball at the time.

Burke Badenhop was supposed to be the worst pitcher in the deal and he turned out to be the best one.

You're just playing results.

I don't see how we're supposed to credit Beinfest for acquiring team needs for Uggla, yet we don't give him credit for acquiring the same things with more upside for Cabrera.

In hindsight, the Cabrera trade was considered a fair deal by most, all things considered. In hindsight, the Uggla trade was considered a horrible value deal by many because we were trading a slugger for a mediocre 2B and an unproven lefty reliever.

I really don't see how you like one and dislike the other so much.

And the Adrian Gonzalez/Bonifacio cases are rather similar. If you're going to fault him for the unpredictable improvements Gonzalez made, you have to just give him credit for Bonifacio's remarkable improvement this year, no?

[Valid]

Which is how the world works, for the record.

They don't play the games in abstract models.

But that doesn't mean you call him a bad GM for making the deal. No one really complained about the return at the time. Beinfest got two top prospects who just so happened to not work out. It's not his fault he was unlucky.