Loading ...One of the most loyal citizens of The Nation, Matt WI, has alerted us to this piece by Tom Verducci over at SI. Verducci has been trying to determine which teams got the most bang for their buck over the last decade. As you might imagine, the Reds assuredly do not rank among the most efficient teams. The top five most efficient: Florida, St. Louis, Minnesota, Oakland, Tampa. The five least efficient: Seattle, LA Dodgers, Chicago Cubs, Baltimore, NY Mets.
Verducci’s methodology is a bit clunky, but it’s an interesting study nonetheless, and the conclusions surprise me very little. Check it out.
It is not a surprise to me that the Marlins, A’s, and Twins were in the top 5 efficient teams…they are very well run organizations. It also isn’t that big a surprise the Mets were the worst run franchise. They always seem to throw around big bucks to players who almost never perform to the level expected or throw money to terrible players.
The Reds were exactly where I thought they would be, right in the middle, little more towards the worst run franchise side.
No, the results are not surprising, but I did find them somewhat validating to the idea that the Reds can be competitive and efficient without a watershed moment in MLB like a salary cap.
Now we’ll just have to wait for a watershed moment within the organization, but I’d like to think they’re getting there… This also dovetails with the recent (largely reasonable) signings of Masset and Burton.
@Matt WI: I agree 100%
You may not be a WS contender every single season, ala NYY & BOS but you can be a division winner contender with a chance at a WS like the Cardinals.
This organization just has to be run better at the top on down. This off-season has been encouraging to me that they are heading in the right direction.
Matt, I usually agree with you on most topics, but I have to respectfully disagree here. While it is clear that you can compete without a “watershed” event in MLB, teams like the Reds can not sustain that competitiveness, no matter how efficiently they run the organization. Look at all the teams that do compete almost every year, yet are not the most efficiently ran franchises. And then you have teams like the Dodgers, Cubs and Mets that are horribly ran, yet have a legitimte chance at the post season every year b/c they have the luxury of throwing money at their problems and/or mistakes. This advantage gap can not be fixed without a “watershed” moment.
@RiverCity Redleg: I concede your point that some teams have the advantage of throwing money at their problems and win without efficiency.
Perhaps the better way for me to phrase it is that given there is little to no expectation for a salary cap or major change, let’s hope that the Reds improve their efficiency to improve their chances of winning instead of playing the “baseball just isn’t fair” card. They may not win as frequently as some teams, but more frequently than they do now.
I saw another article at si.com advocating for a return to the “reserve clause” era that would essentially abolish the free agency market, have the owners pay all monies into a central fund, and have the players union distribute the money as they see fit… likely based on performance. The upshot is that those who play well get paid w/o waiting to be arbitration or free agency eligible. Those who suck, like say, Willy T, get paid less for sucking. Now that would be interesting.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/sky_andrecheck/01/14/andrecheck.free.agency/index.html
I’ve got no remarks. Just thought it was worth stating twice.
Very interesting article. I would be all for that, but I see a couple of pitfalls (aside from the fact that the players nor owners would ever allow it). The players would need better protction from being in an enviroment they find detrimental to their careers. e.g. you could be the backup 1b and not getting much PT, but you are talented enough to start on most other teams. The organization has no insentive to trade you b/c you’re not costing them much and to the contrary has more insentive to keep you so that you don’t go to another team and come back to haunt you. I also see problems in determining how they distribute the reserve money. Dusty Baker is a prime example that two people can look at the same person with wildly varying opinions to that player’s worth.
But, if these issues could be worked out reasonably, I would be all for the Reserve System over something like a salary cap.