Yankees interested in Zambrano?

[rok]

I just want to say that PLENTY of people were on the Hendry bandwagon until this season. I wasn't happy with him during 2005-06, but I was nothing but pleased the past few seasons, aside from 2009. It's wrong to say that Hendry gets unfairly criticized. It comes with the territory and people in general have short memories.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=72922:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:05 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72920:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You said the team that wins more consistently (Red Sox) has a person making better decisions than the team not winning as consistently (Cubs).

I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If you were talking about ONE OR TWO seasons, I would understand. But we're talking about FIVE YEARS. How is this unclear?

Teams that have spent comparably - COMPARABLY - over the past FIVE SEASONS have generally - GENERALLY - won more games than the Cubs.

It can't all be luck. There is a single common factor. And it even holds true when you ACTUALLY REVIEW Hendry's moves over the last five years. It's not just metrics - it's metrics backing up what we've all observed with our eyes.

I'm literally going insane.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


You can't pin it to anyone one single factor Ace. That's the point here. Luck would be one single factor.

In the case of Boston, they've been able to rely on some young guys that have developed from their system (Youkilis, Pedroia, Ellsbury, etc.) Those guys make up a very small amount of their total payroll thus giving them a chance to spend in a risky way in other places.

This is one of the many factors that the Red Sox have been able to consistently win mor than the Cubs IMO.

Now, you can point to those young guys and tell me that Hendry could have made the decision to draft and develop some of those guys. That Epstein is the superior GM because he noticed them and had the superior decision making ability, so he took them. But personally, I think drafting and developing good prospects <i>is</i> partly luck. It's also part talent evaluation too, and if your argument was that a guy like Epstein is a superior GM mostly because of his prospect evaluation I would have trouble opposing your position. But, that's not your argument (I don't believe so at least).

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=72930:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:29 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72922:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:05 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72920:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->You said the team that wins more consistently (Red Sox) has a person making better decisions than the team not winning as consistently (Cubs).

I disagreed or opposed that thought. I said sometimes things just don't work out for you such as Soto/Soriano sucking dick. That has very little to do with the decision making of the GM.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If you were talking about ONE OR TWO seasons, I would understand. But we're talking about FIVE YEARS. How is this unclear?

Teams that have spent comparably - COMPARABLY - over the past FIVE SEASONS have generally - GENERALLY - won more games than the Cubs.

It can't all be luck. There is a single common factor. And it even holds true when you ACTUALLY REVIEW Hendry's moves over the last five years. It's not just metrics - it's metrics backing up what we've all observed with our eyes.

I'm literally going insane.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


You can't pin it to anyone one single factor Ace. That's the point here. Luck would be one single factor.

In the case of Boston, they've been able to rely on some young guys that have developed from their system (Youkilis, Pedroia, Ellsbury, etc.) Those guys make up a very small amount of their total payroll thus giving them a chance to spend in a risky way in other places.

This is one of the many factors that the Red Sox have been able to consistently win mor than the Cubs IMO.

Now, you can point to those young guys and tell me that Hendry could have made the decision to draft and develop some of those guys. That Epstein is the superior GM because he noticed them and had the superior decision making ability, so he took them. But personally, I think drafting and developing good prospects <i>is</i> partly luck. It's also part talent evaluation too, and if your argument was that a guy like Epstein is a superior GM mostly because of his prospect evaluation I would have trouble opposing your position. But, that's not your argument (I don't believe so at least).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OH MY SWEET MERCIFUL CHRIST, SCAREY.

I've never pointed to ANY ONE FACTOR. Please, for the love of Christmas, just read my last post - IGNORING HENDRY'S SPECIFICS - and agree with it.

Then, we can agree to disagree on how Hendry fits into the framework.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=72925:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I am heading out of town soon, so I need to wrap this up - and I can't be bashing my head in the whole trip, so let me try to phrase this in a way we can all agree, even if we disagree on the particulars.

If you have two teams, and over a long enough period of time (we can debate how long it has to be before it stops being "luck"), Team A has won 10 more games per season (again, we can debate how many games) than Team B, but the two teams have had the same payroll (again, we can debate how close they have to be to be the "same"), that SUGGESTS that Team A has a better front office than Team B.

I cannot fathom anyone disagreeing with this BASIC proposition. We can debate all those little internal things (and I suspect that's what you guys are doing), but the BASIC premise must be true.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This post, and this post only. Agree with it. I need it. Note that "suggests" means "suggests but does not ALONE prove."

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=72931:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:35 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I've never pointed to ANY ONE FACTOR.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes you have.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->if two teams spend the same amount of money, and one team consistently wins more than the other over a stretch of SEVERAL years ... what's the differing factor? <b>It's the guy making the decisions on HOW to spend that money.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Then, to try to understand my argument, you pointed out luck as alternatively being the one factor:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->It can't all be luck.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Then you even followed up that comment by saying:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->There is a single common factor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't know what to tell you here Ace.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=72932:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72925:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I am heading out of town soon, so I need to wrap this up - and I can't be bashing my head in the whole trip, so let me try to phrase this in a way we can all agree, even if we disagree on the particulars.

If you have two teams, and over a long enough period of time (we can debate how long it has to be before it stops being "luck"), Team A has won 10 more games per season (again, we can debate how many games) than Team B, but the two teams have had the same payroll (again, we can debate how close they have to be to be the "same"), that SUGGESTS that Team A has a better front office than Team B.

I cannot fathom anyone disagreeing with this BASIC proposition. We can debate all those little internal things (and I suspect that's what you guys are doing), but the BASIC premise must be true.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This post, and this post only. Agree with it. I need it. Note that "suggests" means "suggests but does not ALONE prove."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I disagree with the post. I do however think that Boston has the better front office though.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=72933:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:46 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72931:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:35 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I've never pointed to ANY ONE FACTOR.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes you have.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->if two teams spend the same amount of money, and one team consistently wins more than the other over a stretch of SEVERAL years ... what's the differing factor? <b>It's the guy making the decisions on HOW to spend that money.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Then, to try to understand my argument, you pointed out luck as alternatively being the one factor:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->It can't all be luck.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Then you even followed up that comment by saying:

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->There is a single common factor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't know what to tell you here Ace.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

That last "single common factor" didn't mean a single common factor making a team shitty - I meant a common factor on the team through the years. I'm trying to STRIP AWAY all the other possible factors by making the initial proposition as broad as possible. There isn't a "single factor" that makes a team underperform. I'm saying, if you equalize everything else, there comes a point where all you're left with is the front office.

JUST READ THE LAST POST, WHICH IS IN THE ABSTRACT. That's all I need, Scarey. Tell me how it is possible to disagree with it.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=72934:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:47 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72932:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72925:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I am heading out of town soon, so I need to wrap this up - and I can't be bashing my head in the whole trip, so let me try to phrase this in a way we can all agree, even if we disagree on the particulars.

If you have two teams, and over a long enough period of time (we can debate how long it has to be before it stops being "luck"), Team A has won 10 more games per season (again, we can debate how many games) than Team B, but the two teams have had the same payroll (again, we can debate how close they have to be to be the "same"), that SUGGESTS that Team A has a better front office than Team B.

I cannot fathom anyone disagreeing with this BASIC proposition. We can debate all those little internal things (and I suspect that's what you guys are doing), but the BASIC premise must be true.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This post, and this post only. Agree with it. I need it. Note that "suggests" means "suggests but does not ALONE prove."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I disagree with the post. I do however think that Boston has the better front office though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

How is it even possible to disagree with that post? I am not exaggerating - I *literally* cannot understand it. And I'd like to, because I feel like I must be missing something.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=72936:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72934:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:47 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72932:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72925:date=Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 24 2009, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I am heading out of town soon, so I need to wrap this up - and I can't be bashing my head in the whole trip, so let me try to phrase this in a way we can all agree, even if we disagree on the particulars.

If you have two teams, and over a long enough period of time (we can debate how long it has to be before it stops being "luck"), Team A has won 10 more games per season (again, we can debate how many games) than Team B, but the two teams have had the same payroll (again, we can debate how close they have to be to be the "same"), that SUGGESTS that Team A has a better front office than Team B.

I cannot fathom anyone disagreeing with this BASIC proposition. We can debate all those little internal things (and I suspect that's what you guys are doing), but the BASIC premise must be true.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This post, and this post only. Agree with it. I need it. Note that "suggests" means "suggests but does not ALONE prove."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I disagree with the post. I do however think that Boston has the better front office though.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

How is it even possible to disagree with that post? I am not exaggerating - I *literally* cannot understand it. And I'd like to, because I feel like I must be missing something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Clone all MLB players, prospects, coaches, scouts, personel, and anyone else that has any affiliation with the teams as well as recreate all facilities and markets each team uses/plays in. Take two different GMs and put them in charge of the same franchise of both leagues and say "Go!". Give them four or five years to see what they can do. The one of the two GMs that has done consistently better in that time period is with very high probability the better GM.

There's just too many variables for me. If you put it in a vacuum, then I can agree with it. I just don't think the amount of wins is the complete telling factor. It is what GMs are judged on, and I do believe the amount of wins a club has annually has a high corelation with the ability of the GM. But only knowing the amount of wins in the year relative to other teams is not enough for me to draw a conclusion.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=72917:date=Dec 24 2009, 08:44 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72909:date=Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Like in most sports, coaches and GMs get too much credit when it goes well, and too much blame when it doesn't. I think Hendry is an illustration of that. He got a lot of credit for the back to back post season trips<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

actually, on this board? Not so much. Standing rules are if the Cubs lose, it's all Hendry's fault. If they win, it's because he had a huge payroll. There is no credit.

Otherwise, great post. It's nice not being the only guy having to make these arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


What am I? Chopped liver?

I do want to make a point here as well. Everyone blasts BT and myself for being Hendry supporters all the time. I think people don't understand that it's not the fact that we like Hendry. I can't speak 100% for BT, but I can tell you that I just think Hendry is the easy target and get's blamed for problems when really... it's no one single person that caused us to get swept in the playoffs in 2007/2008. Or to underachieve this last year. I think cherp illustrated this point pretty well. Good stuff cherp.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Apologies Scarey. And yes, you've summed up my feelings nicely. I'm actually not a huge fan of Hendry, and I would put him probably somewhere in the second half when ranking "best GMs in baseball". I just think he gets unreasonable shit from people. As, I might add, does pretty much every GM from a team not winning championships.

I'll let you and Ace slug it out, but I'll just add that while I find Ace's statement perfectly reasonable, and to an extent I "agree" with it, I just don't think it can be that great of a metric, if shifting one 3 year span one single year, makes it go from a horrible indictment of a GM's inadequacy to showing the team essentially playing as it should. I don't think cost per win is very effective on a year per year basis due to myriad factors out of the GM's control, and I've already shown how even grouping things in 3 year spans can be manipulated quite easily to show 2 different outcomes.

Merry Christmas, I'm outta here.

[Mikey]

i agree with everything Ace has said.

[kbwsb]

Ace, I hope you enjoy your holiday, knowing that you are totally and completely correct in this argument. Yes, Cherp, Scarey and BT are making very, very good Pike's Peak-type points. However, you are making Mt. Everest-type points that trump theirs.

(BTW, when you made that 5-year comparison, you didn't even mention the fact that if it were a <i>six-</i>year comparison, it would have included that <i>other</i> Red Sox championship.)

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=72943:date=Dec 24 2009, 12:29 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 24 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Ace, I hope you enjoy your holiday, knowing that you are totally and completely correct in this argument. Yes, Cherp, Scarey and BT are making very, very good Pike's Peak-type points. However, you are making Mt. Everest-type points that trump theirs.

(BTW, when you made that 5-year comparison, you didn't even mention the fact that if it were a <i>six-</i>year comparison, it would have included that <i>other</i> Red Sox championship.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Win, lose, you have never, <i>ever</i> liked Hendry. Since Cubstalk. If I said that Hendry sucked and murdering babies was the best you would agree with me.

[Rappster]

<!--quoteo(post=72944:date=Dec 24 2009, 12:34 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Dec 24 2009, 12:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72943:date=Dec 24 2009, 12:29 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 24 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Ace, I hope you enjoy your holiday, knowing that you are totally and completely correct in this argument. Yes, Cherp, Scarey and BT are making very, very good Pike's Peak-type points. However, you are making Mt. Everest-type points that trump theirs.

(BTW, when you made that 5-year comparison, you didn't even mention the fact that if it were a <i>six-</i>year comparison, it would have included that <i>other</i> Red Sox championship.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Win, lose, you have never, <i>ever</i> liked Hendry. Since Cubstalk. If I said that Hendry sucked and murdering babies was the best you would agree with me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Exactly...and, as I said...when you have to work this hard at attempting to prove the outer edges of your argument, it just makes you look desperate to assign blame.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=72938:date=Dec 24 2009, 11:17 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Dec 24 2009, 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72917:date=Dec 24 2009, 08:44 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 24 2009, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72909:date=Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Dec 24 2009, 02:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->Like in most sports, coaches and GMs get too much credit when it goes well, and too much blame when it doesn't. I think Hendry is an illustration of that. He got a lot of credit for the back to back post season trips<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

actually, on this board? Not so much. Standing rules are if the Cubs lose, it's all Hendry's fault. If they win, it's because he had a huge payroll. There is no credit.

Otherwise, great post. It's nice not being the only guy having to make these arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


What am I? Chopped liver?

I do want to make a point here as well. Everyone blasts BT and myself for being Hendry supporters all the time. I think people don't understand that it's not the fact that we like Hendry. I can't speak 100% for BT, but I can tell you that I just think Hendry is the easy target and get's blamed for problems when really... it's no one single person that caused us to get swept in the playoffs in 2007/2008. Or to underachieve this last year. I think cherp illustrated this point pretty well. Good stuff cherp.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Apologies Scarey. And yes, you've summed up my feelings nicely. I'm actually not a huge fan of Hendry, and I would put him probably somewhere in the second half when ranking "best GMs in baseball". I just think he gets unreasonable shit from people. As, I might add, does pretty much every GM from a team not winning championships.

I'll let you and Ace slug it out, but I'll just add that while I find Ace's statement perfectly reasonable, and to an extent I "agree" with it, I just don't think it can be that great of a metric, if shifting one 3 year span one single year, makes it go from a horrible indictment of a GM's inadequacy to showing the team essentially playing as it should. I don't think cost per win is very effective on a year per year basis due to myriad factors out of the GM's control, and I've already shown how even grouping things in 3 year spans can be manipulated quite easily to show 2 different outcomes.

Merry Christmas, I'm outta here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Totally fair. I have no issues with this - I just disagree. I feel sane again.