Tweet
I kind of agree with Lowell, but it's tough because there are almost like three kinds of professional baseball being played now. There's the fuck it, unlimited budget, guys like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and to an extent the Tigers. There's the middle of the road teams that have a budget but can go over, and then there's the bottom tier teams that have a budget and can't go over. Oh, there's also the Marlins.
Anyway, Lowell's mindset works great for a team that can spend good money after bad and can deal prospects away because their scouts don't like his mental makeup or some intangible shit like that. Call it the Tigers 2004-2014 plan. I really don't think there's a trade in which they came out behind when they were dealing prospects, even if BA and the stat community both screamed they were giving up way too much to get the players they were getting. With the exception of Andrew Miller (and that deserves a big asterisk anyway because what he was meant to be and what he is are so different) is there even a player they traded in that timeframe that's a legitimate difference making major leaguer? That's where I think the Lowell mindset can work. Internally make up your mind you don't like top prospect X. Deal him for established star. Let the stat community wring their hands how dumb a move it is, and the vast majority of the time, look like a genius because the prospect never made it.
If you have a budget, you can't deal away prospects with reckless abandon because they're cheap labor. You hope the analytics tell you what you need to know. Hell, I'd argue that you can go ahead and do away with a scouting department and instead have one or two scouts in the entire organization if you're on a super tight budget. Baseball's really easy to quantify because it's an individual game masquerading as a team sport. You can absolutely quantify an individual's impact with minimal effort.
Now, when you're assembling a roster, go for it. Give me stats. Give me analytics. Give me all that. But when it comes to prospects, I'm lukewarm on the numbers game and believe that the "eye test" works a lot.
Anyway, Lowell's mindset works great for a team that can spend good money after bad and can deal prospects away because their scouts don't like his mental makeup or some intangible shit like that. Call it the Tigers 2004-2014 plan. I really don't think there's a trade in which they came out behind when they were dealing prospects, even if BA and the stat community both screamed they were giving up way too much to get the players they were getting. With the exception of Andrew Miller (and that deserves a big asterisk anyway because what he was meant to be and what he is are so different) is there even a player they traded in that timeframe that's a legitimate difference making major leaguer? That's where I think the Lowell mindset can work. Internally make up your mind you don't like top prospect X. Deal him for established star. Let the stat community wring their hands how dumb a move it is, and the vast majority of the time, look like a genius because the prospect never made it.
If you have a budget, you can't deal away prospects with reckless abandon because they're cheap labor. You hope the analytics tell you what you need to know. Hell, I'd argue that you can go ahead and do away with a scouting department and instead have one or two scouts in the entire organization if you're on a super tight budget. Baseball's really easy to quantify because it's an individual game masquerading as a team sport. You can absolutely quantify an individual's impact with minimal effort.
Now, when you're assembling a roster, go for it. Give me stats. Give me analytics. Give me all that. But when it comes to prospects, I'm lukewarm on the numbers game and believe that the "eye test" works a lot.
Comment