Post by Lark11 on Mar 19, 2008 18:05:10 GMT -5
Just got done reading an interesting interview with A's assistant GM David Forst. As everyone knows, the A's do things a bit differently, and it was interesting to read his insights into how they operate.
sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/news/story?id=3299785
He mentions briefly about the A's purchasing new equipment in an effort to reduce their injuries in 2008. Something else that caught my eye was his reference to the team's "success cycle." The idea is that lower market teams cannot consistently compete, so they have to pick their spots for sustained periods of success. After a few years of pushing for playoff contention, they have to reset and restart.
The A's reset their "success cycle" this offseason by dealing away Haren and Swisher. They felt that the A's peaked and were on the downslope with players who were only going to get more expensive. The goal is to match the tenure of expensive veteran players with the arrival of impact prospects. To have the best shot to contend, you have to have the timing right. It makes no sense to pay millions to veterans if your prospects won't arrive in time to supplement their efforts. The best chance for sustained success is to pair the two sets of players in order to get over the hump and to the promised land.
The idea of the "success cycle" made me think about the Reds efforts for 2008. To me, it seems very clear that the Reds were setup perfectly for the 2009 season.
If the Reds had kept Hamilton, then they would have been in great shape for the 2009 season. They could have had Hamilton in left and Bruce in right, which would have enabled them to trade Dunn and Griffey or let them walk for compensatory picks, which would have gone a long way towards restocking the farm system. They likely wouldn't have lost any production in the switch, but would've freed up ~$23M in salary after 2008. In addition, Edwin, Votto, and Phillips would supplement the core of talent around which to build.
As for the pitching, Harang, Arroyo, Cueto, and Bailey would be in the 2009 rotation with a bullpen of Burton, Roenicke, and Viola. That would be a solid, young core for the offense and the pitching staff. In addition, they'd have at least $30M in salary off the books for use in improving the team.
Instead, they are now in the position where they will likely have to pay Dunn or Griffey ~$10M+ to play left, instead of paying Hamilton ~$500K. In addition, they've laid out a ton of money to Francisco Cordero. If your organization is set to seriously compete starting in 2009, does it make sense to spend $8.5M on a closer this year and ~$10-15M on a leftfielder next year?
I guess my question is are the Reds jumping the gun in an effort to compete in 2008? Would they be better served by setting the organization up for a sustained period of success starting in 2009? Maybe the difference is negligible, but it seems like they are trying to force their way forward on the "success cycle," which may mean that they are not establishing the best timing for their sustained playoff push.
sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/news/story?id=3299785
He mentions briefly about the A's purchasing new equipment in an effort to reduce their injuries in 2008. Something else that caught my eye was his reference to the team's "success cycle." The idea is that lower market teams cannot consistently compete, so they have to pick their spots for sustained periods of success. After a few years of pushing for playoff contention, they have to reset and restart.
The A's reset their "success cycle" this offseason by dealing away Haren and Swisher. They felt that the A's peaked and were on the downslope with players who were only going to get more expensive. The goal is to match the tenure of expensive veteran players with the arrival of impact prospects. To have the best shot to contend, you have to have the timing right. It makes no sense to pay millions to veterans if your prospects won't arrive in time to supplement their efforts. The best chance for sustained success is to pair the two sets of players in order to get over the hump and to the promised land.
The idea of the "success cycle" made me think about the Reds efforts for 2008. To me, it seems very clear that the Reds were setup perfectly for the 2009 season.
If the Reds had kept Hamilton, then they would have been in great shape for the 2009 season. They could have had Hamilton in left and Bruce in right, which would have enabled them to trade Dunn and Griffey or let them walk for compensatory picks, which would have gone a long way towards restocking the farm system. They likely wouldn't have lost any production in the switch, but would've freed up ~$23M in salary after 2008. In addition, Edwin, Votto, and Phillips would supplement the core of talent around which to build.
As for the pitching, Harang, Arroyo, Cueto, and Bailey would be in the 2009 rotation with a bullpen of Burton, Roenicke, and Viola. That would be a solid, young core for the offense and the pitching staff. In addition, they'd have at least $30M in salary off the books for use in improving the team.
Instead, they are now in the position where they will likely have to pay Dunn or Griffey ~$10M+ to play left, instead of paying Hamilton ~$500K. In addition, they've laid out a ton of money to Francisco Cordero. If your organization is set to seriously compete starting in 2009, does it make sense to spend $8.5M on a closer this year and ~$10-15M on a leftfielder next year?
I guess my question is are the Reds jumping the gun in an effort to compete in 2008? Would they be better served by setting the organization up for a sustained period of success starting in 2009? Maybe the difference is negligible, but it seems like they are trying to force their way forward on the "success cycle," which may mean that they are not establishing the best timing for their sustained playoff push.
