Tuesday, May 04, 2004

Most Disturbing

This is from Philliesphans (which I've really got to put up a permanent link to, already), from a poster who claims to have inside information about the team and/or work in the front office. I believe him, based on several occasions when this poster informed the community that something big--a trade, a signing--was in the works and then hours later the event did in fact come to pass.

The topic specifically at hand has to do with whether the Phillies will bring up a reliever to expand the staff and/or cut ineffective vet Roberto Hernandez to give someone else a shot. But in general it seems to accurately reflect the Phils' philosophy on acquiring and "proven veteran relief pitchers"--something that has driven me friggin' nuts about this team for four years running--versus giving minor-leaguers a chance to contribute from the bullpen. So here's his post, with my response following below:

If you are management, this is the year. This is the year to put the best possible team on the field. Roberto Hernandez has a career ERA of 3.31 with 320 career saves. He has experience. He has experience in big games. Is he still in his prime? No. Has he given up a few big hits so far this season? Yes he has, but who doesn't? So has Worrell, even Wagner blew a game. It happens. But Hernandez has very good stuff and he has experience. If the Phils were to bring up one of these young guys that are being discussed, and they get hit, then everyone will say what an idiot Ed Wade is to bring up unexperienced pitchers in a possible championship season. Either way, people will find a way to complain.
...
There are other teams in this league that would go for the rookie [over Hernandez]...why? because they won't spend the money like the Phils have. All you had for 8 straight years were inexperienced rookies. Year after year a young Phillies team would get clobbered. And year after year the fan base complained to spend money. So now the Phils spend money, but now you want some young kids back. Either you were not a phan a few years ago or you are being too critical.


(And I wrote:)

...this is a straw man argument... and, disturbingly, it suggests that pricetag is more important than performance in terms of the Phils' personnel decisions. Hence the acquisition of a washed-up and ineffective--but certainly well-compensated--Mike Williams last summer.

Wade has made this mistake again and again and again. Turk Wendell and Dennis Cook--both veteran relievers with plenty of "big game experience"--arguably cost us the playoffs in 2001. Timlin did little of value after coming aboard in 2002. Plesac was marginally helpful, but ultimately not a difference-maker. They all represented "spending money"... unwisely.

For everyone but the Yankees and the truly poor teams at the bottom, success depends on using your resources wisely. To me, this means paying top dollar for the superstars, getting cost certainty for the up-and-comers, and being resource-efficient everywhere else. Wade has established his big-spending cred by signing Thome and taking on a lot of salary for Wagner and Milton in trades this past winter. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO IT IN THE BULLPEN!

Look at the Anaheim 'pen from 2002, when they won the title. Aside from Troy Percival, how many of those guys made appreciably more than the minimum? By your philosophy, though, Ben Weber and Brendan Donnelly wouldn't even have merited a shot--and the lame (and dishonest) excuse would have been that "the fans" wanted Mike Timlin, Todd Jones, Rod Beck or some other guy in his late 30s who once saved a lot of games but can't get it done anymore.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different result. Wade needs to get over his fetish for veteran relievers. What Roberto Hernandez did in 1995, or where he ranks on the all-time saves list (saves is a crap stat anyway), isn't just irrelevant to his ability to get it done in 2004--it's actually harmful.

The "back of the baseball card" might not lie, but past performance is no guarantee of future results.

No comments: