Giancarlo: "I Do Not Like This at All”

[Mainge]

I agree with that. Especially the last 2 paragraphs.

[Erick]

Also, it doesn't really matter how many GMs would have made that same decision.

I think it does.

If a bunch of scouts involved who have actually watched these players love them so much to the point that Andrew Miller was even drawing comparisons to Randy Johnson, I have a tough time blaming Larry Beinfest for Miller becoming a bust.

From a statistical standpoint (which, for what it's worth, fans do have access to), there was no telling sign that Miller would become a guy who would forget what the strike zone looked like.

I think they can be blamed for not extending Cabrera when the time was right and not building around such a player. That's fair. They can be blamed if the same thing happens with Stanton, as well.

[Omar]

Shouldn't he always be measured against his peers?

I can see why this is an attractive option, but I prefer the primary factors to be absolute while relativity serves as context.

There are certain potential barometers that are absolute which could be used:
1- Win percentage
2- Championships
3- Record change after major moves
4- Wins per dollar
5- Effectiveness in trading
6- etc.

Can you compare our front office to the NL East and the rest of the league for context? Of course - but if everyone in the East, for example, was terrible, fans wouldn't be any more interested in watching Marlins games. They'd just be interested in watching the Marlins play the East and probably no one else.

If you want to measure relativity as one eye > blind, cool, but I don't think that's the best assessment. Wins, for me, are the final and most important measure of the ability to construct a baseball team.

[Erick]

I can see why this is an attractive option, but I prefer the primary factors to be absolute while relativity serves as context.

There are certain potential barometers that are absolute which could be used:
1- Win percentage
2- Championships
3- Record change after major moves
4- Wins per dollar
5- Effectiveness in trading
6- etc.

Can you compare our front office to the NL East and the rest of the league for context? Of course - but if everyone in the East, for example, was terrible, fans wouldn't be any more interested in watching Marlins games. They'd just be interested in watching the Marlins play the East and probably no one else.

If you want to measure relativity as one eye > blind, cool, but I don't think that's the best assessment. Wins, for me, are the final and most important measure of the ability to construct a baseball team.

Hasn't the front office basically been average to above average in every category you listed?

1-Win percentage...I don't know what it is exactly, but it can't be absolutely terrible and there should be some context here which is your #4.

2-Championships...they have 1. Many front offices have 0.

3-Despite the horrendous Cabrera deal, they still managed some winning years after that, for what it's worth.

4-With the exception of 2012, they've been pretty good at this. They've mostly had a history of not spending yet they're not the Pittsburgh Pirates. Again, I don't know the ranking but I would assume we're near the top in wins per dollar with this front office.

5-They've had maybe a handful of bad trades. I mentioned this the other day and said the problem is they fucked up the one we're talking about on this page. When you trade your franchise player and ultimately get little to no production in return, it's going to set a franchise back some years. Especially one that spends like we do. In general though, I don't think they're terrible with trades. Perhaps you have a different opinion.

[Omar]

For the record, I wouldn't necessarily use all of those. Throwing out possibilities in order to hone in on what we should use.

[Mainge]

I can see why this is an attractive option, but I prefer the primary factors to be absolute while relativity serves as context.

There are certain potential barometers that are absolute which could be used:
1- Win percentage
2- Championships
3- Record change after major moves
4- Wins per dollar
5- Effectiveness in trading
6- etc.

Can you compare our front office to the NL East and the rest of the league for context? Of course - but if everyone in the East, for example, was terrible, fans wouldn't be any more interested in watching Marlins games. They'd just be interested in watching the Marlins play the East and probably no one else.

If you want to measure relativity as one eye > blind, cool, but I don't think that's the best assessment. Wins, for me, are the final and most important measure of the ability to construct a baseball team.

I wouldn't know where to begin on how to develop absolute standards like that.

For what it's worth, since Beinfest has been here, we're 14th in the league in winning percentage, which would make him average by your most important standard.

But really, it's unfair to judge him on things like trading, drafting, etc. without the context of what his peers are doing.

[Beef]

Fair, though not all of us liked the deal at the time (I realize there's no way of proving this since that was at least one message board ago, but I'm sure the parties involved will remember who was on what side).

Is there a standard we can agree upon to measure our general manager by? Not other teams, since we don't root for them nor do we have any financial investment with same. What would our acceptable standard be for determining whether our front office has done a good job be?

'There is no way to judge' is not an acceptable answer.

I've never really felt this is fair. The context is necessary. The lack of context is what leads every message board to saying they have the worst hitting coach ever. I'm ok with the ownership folks having their own separate set of standards, but I'm uncomfortable judging that way.

(Ok for ownership because it is their business, their money - they can do what they think they need to, even if I think it's dumb, short sighted, etc)

[Omar]

I wouldn't know where to begin on how to develop absolute standards like that.

For what it's worth, since Beinfest has been here, we're 14th in the league in winning percentage, which would make him average by your most important standard.

But really, it's unfair to judge him on things like trading, drafting, etc. without the context of what his peers are doing.

I've never really felt this is fair. The context is necessary. The lack of context is what leads every message board to saying they have the worst hitting coach ever. I'm ok with the ownership folks having their own separate set of standards, but I'm uncomfortable judging that way.

(Ok for ownership because it is their business, their money - they can do what they think they need to, even if I think it's dumb, short sighted, etc)

Out of curiosity, why are both of you unsure of which standard to use? Is it a reflection of an area you feel you're not qualified for, or is it something else?

I ask because, at the end of the day, we're the customers. It's entirely in our purview (and I'd say a requirement of good habits, really), to determine what we're expecting for our dollars and then hold the product accountable for their ability to meet us at that level.

[Erick]

For what it's worth, when evaluating a GM (at least me, as a fan), I think #'s 1, 2 and 4 are the most important.

[Beef]

Anything without context is bound to be unfair. Without context, how can you even set a standard of how many wins, championships, wins per dollar, etc is fair,

[CrimsonCane]

I don't think any of those measures are particularly important for me because they can be influenced by so many outside variables. I would evaluate them on one sole criteria: how well do they explain the decisions that they do make? That rightly places process over results. And, if they can give a really good explanation for a bad result, it gives me confidence that they will not repeat that mistake.

By that metric, this organization is failing. They don't have good explanations for their decisions (good or bad).

[Beef]

I don't think they give us their actual reasons for most anything. I'd bet their explanations would be a mixed bag of good, good enough, not so good and bad. I like that as your criteria, but then I think it will come back to what is acceptable mix there?

[CrimsonCane]

I feel like there is a higher correlation when you're solely evaluating the thinking process. Either you have smart decision makers or you don't. So, I don't think it would be as much of a mixed bag as you might expect.

And, if I'm running the organization, I make them explain every decision whether it pans out or it doesn't. If their answers lead me to doubt that there is a plan or their reasoning doesn't hold up under scrutiny, I start to look for someone else. There are only 30 people in the world lucky enough to have this job. If you're not exceptional, find new work.

[Beef]

I definitely agree with a need for explaining the reasoning behind both the good and the bad.

[Erick]

I don't think any of those measures are particularly important for me because they can be influenced by so many outside variables. I would evaluate them on one sole criteria: how well do they explain the decisions that they do make? That rightly places process over results. And, if they can give a really good explanation for a bad result, it gives me confidence that they will not repeat that mistake.

By that metric, this organization is failing. They don't have good explanations for their decisions (good or bad).

Can you provide examples, at least?

Quite honestly, I think this is subjective/highly dependent on one's perspective.
I fail to see how someone can be right or wrong using this criteria. At least in this case, anyway.