PDA

View Full Version : Dusty: MONEY should not be a factor



Matt700wlw
03-25-2008, 06:28 PM
http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2008/03/25/a_question_of_cash.html


Can Reds afford to cut Stanton?
By Hal McCoy | Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 10:58 AM

Dusty Baker made both an interesting and telling comment Tuesday morning in the visitor’s clubhouse at Clearwater’s Bright House Field.

The question was the final determination of the bullpen, who goes and who stays. As candid as always, Baker said, “I know it is not my money, but I hope money isn’t a factor in the final choices. I know the team wants to stay in a budget, but. …”

But, indeed.

The reference obviously was to left-handed relief pitcher Mike Stanton, who wasn’t very good last year and has been mediocre, at best, this spring. But he has a $3 million guaranteed contract with a $500,000 buyout. If the Reds want him to go away (he already cleared waivers, nobody claimed him) and they can’t trade him, it will cost them $3.5 million to show the fans they REALLY want to win this year.

Baker’s bullpen of left-handers would be Jeremy Affeldt, Bill Bray and Kent Mercker. If ownership says, “Keep Stanton,” then Bray has options and might land in Louisville. Or they could jettison Mercker, a situational pitcher Baker likes.

In six appearances, Stanton has given up three runs, four hits, two walks and struck out one.

Affelt hasn’t been that good, either, but Baker stuck up for him.

“I’m a bit concerned about him after he gave it up Monday (two runs, two hits and a walk in one inning, ballooning his spring ERA to 12.51). But he’s a guy you have to consider as having a good track record. Maybe he is throwing too many strikes. He needs to throw quality strikes and keep it as simple as possible. He is a guy who analyzes things too much and he wears his problems all over his face. He cares big-time and you’d rather have that than a guy who doesn’t care.”

The roster remains too large, but there was one cut made Tuesday. Outfielder Jerry Gil was re-assigned to minor-league camp.

Gil most likely will end up at Class AAA Louisville with Jay Bruce and Chris Dickerson and Baker said, “They are going to have some ouftield in Louisville, man. Boy, that potential outfield they have. Whew. Wow. Some good arms, good speed. Probably one of the best around.”

I was tempted to say it, but bit my tongue when I wanted to say, “If you kept Bruce, you might have a much better outfield in Cincinnati.”

Call me Chicken Little.

Of Gil, Baker said, “He needs to play. He didn’t play at all last year (injury) and he is going to be a good player. He realizes he needs some at-bats and needs to play. In fact, he is going to be a very good player. He just needs to stay away from injuries because he has had some unfortunate things happen to him.”


:clap: :clap: :clap: Amen, Dusty.

OnBaseMachine
03-25-2008, 06:29 PM
Stanton might be too expensive to cut
Listen to this article or download audio file.Click-2-Listen

By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

CLEARWATER, Fla. Dusty Baker didn't mention his name, but relief pitcher Mike Stanton is the only guy in the bullpen who fits the description. He is signed to a guaranteed $3 million contract with a $500,000 buyout.

If the Reds can't trade him, they have to keep him or pay him $3.5 million to walk away jobless.

"It's not my money, but you hope that is not the determining factor," said Baker. "That's the way it is in baseball or any business they want to stay within a budget."

Baker talks as if he'd like to keep three left-handers in the bullpen Jeremy Affeldt, Bill Bray and Kent Mercker. If Stanton can't be dealt or isn't released, Bray has options left.

Affeldt came to camp trying to win a rotation job, but was quickly moved to the bullpen and has struggled, posting a 12.51 earned run average.

"We're a bit concerned because he has been giving it up, but you have to consider his track record," said Baker. "He is almost throwing too many strikes. Earlier he was in a rut of not throwing enough strikes. We have to get him throwing quality strikes and getting him comfortable and confident.

"Jeremy tends to worry and analyze a lot of stuff," Baker added. "He has to get to the point, 'As simple as possible.' You can see this guy wears it all over his face. You'd rather have that than a guy who doesn't care and he cares big-time."

The Philadelphia Phillies are desperately searching for a left-handed relief pitcher and would give the Reds third baseman/first baseman Wes Helms, making $2.1 million this year.

Matt700wlw
03-25-2008, 06:31 PM
The Philadelphia Phillies are desperately searching for a left-handed relief pitcher and would give the Reds third baseman/first baseman Wes Helms, making $2.1 million this year.


Ok. How long's he signed for?

Falls City Beer
03-25-2008, 06:39 PM
Good for Dusty. Now imagine one of the little "sheep" like Narron or Petey Mac speaking truth to power like that.

fearofpopvol1
03-25-2008, 06:41 PM
Wow, I'm impressed. I do like Dusty being candid about this because he is speaking what everyone else is thinking.

The argument that it's too expensive to cut Stanton is hogwash. Stanton's $3 million is a "sunk" cost at this point. Yes, the Reds would have to pay an additional $500K, which I realize isn't pocket change maybe, but it's not exactly a lot of money either.

Unlike many others, I don't mind Affedlt in the pen. I don't think he's mindblowing or anything, but he's a lot younger and certainly a decent option.

reds44
03-25-2008, 06:41 PM
Good for Dusty. Now imagine one of the little "sheep" like Narron or Petey Mac speaking truth to power like that.
Yeah it's nice to have a manager who has legs to stand on and isn't a puppet to the GM.

Falls City Beer
03-25-2008, 06:45 PM
Yeah it's nice to have a manager who has legs to stand on and isn't a puppet to the GM.

Folks who like to play around with office politics won't like that Dusty essentially showed up Wayne here. But that's exactly what he's done. Good. Castellini needs to know that Wayne has been throwing bad money after bad at awful bullpen options for two seasons. Most people prefer inertia to stirring the pot, but truth is just about the only thing that motivates people.

REDREAD
03-25-2008, 07:10 PM
Good for Dusty. Now imagine one of the little "sheep" like Narron or Petey Mac speaking truth to power like that.

Yes, it's so nice to have a manager that isn't a puppet.
No one has stood up to management since Larkin left.

And you can bet the players respect that a lot more than a guy who steals chairs and jerseys..

membengal
03-25-2008, 07:18 PM
Good luck with this Dusty. I'm rooting for you, more than you can know.

WMR
03-25-2008, 07:22 PM
How bizarre is it to have a manager not completely beholden to his GM? Awesome.

WMR
03-25-2008, 07:23 PM
We can either pay Stanton to SUCK for us OR pay him NOT to suck for us.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ...

Unassisted
03-25-2008, 08:35 PM
We can either pay Stanton to SUCK for us OR pay him NOT to suck for us.
Having to pay Stanton a 17% premium over his regular salary to watch games from home or another team's bullpen is bound to stick in Castellini's craw.

Spring~Fields
03-25-2008, 08:41 PM
Maybe Baker wants to keep Stanton and dump Jeremy Affeldt or to dump both of them.

Reds Nd2
03-25-2008, 08:44 PM
Having to pay Stanton a 17% premium over his regular salary to watch games from home or another team's bullpen is bound to stick in Castellini's craw.

Do you mean the buyout? :confused:

RFS62
03-25-2008, 08:55 PM
Having to pay Stanton a 17% premium over his regular salary to watch games from home or another team's bullpen is bound to stick in Castellini's craw.



Paying him ANY amount for what we've seen from him in a Reds uniform should stick in his craw too.

You pay extra sometimes to make a recurring pain go away.

Always Red
03-25-2008, 09:00 PM
This is very good news.

Stanton or Affeldt, or both.

Gone.

Life is good.

edabbs44
03-25-2008, 09:43 PM
This is very good news.

Stanton or Affeldt, or both.

Gone.

Life is good.

Usually the GM has the last say about who stays and who goes.

I wouldn't be floored if Stanton got cut, but no way Affeldt gets cut. $3MM for a spring training would be a complete failure. One too much for WK to admit this early.

redsrule2500
03-25-2008, 09:48 PM
Usually the GM has the last say about who stays and who goes.

I wouldn't be floored if Stanton got cut, but no way Affeldt gets cut. $3MM for a spring training would be a complete failure. One too much for WK to admit this early.

No doubt. I even cringe at the thought of cutting Affeldt.

This is kinda neat too, it's like the three branches of the Reds government! Manager, Ownership, General Manager :D

Reds Nd2
03-25-2008, 09:53 PM
You pay extra sometimes to make a recurring pain go away.

But they wouldn't be paying extra to make him go away. The Reds are already on the hook for the $500,000 buyout of the teams '09 option on Stanton.

edabbs44
03-25-2008, 10:12 PM
This is a perfect example of why some people (like me) hate it when mediocre at best relievers are given million dollar contracts.

Some claim it is only,for example, $3MM. While true, it is also money better spent elsewhere when the guy getting it isn't going to materially improve the franchise. It also helps him get on the roster when he might not deserve it otherwise.

RedsManRick
03-25-2008, 10:47 PM
It's a sunk cost. You're going to pay him either way, you might as well play your better player. The mistake was made when the deal was signed. Admit you screwed up and move on.

MartyFan
03-25-2008, 11:10 PM
I am one who LOVES Special K...BUT even I with my major man love for him can see that Stanton needs to go...Suck it up, buy the guy out and move on.

The team just sunk $40 whatever million dollars into a closer...certainly they can eat $3.5 mil and make it up when attendance and concessions go up because the team isn't pissing away games after the 6th inning.

traderumor
03-26-2008, 06:51 AM
But money is a factor. If money was not a factor, this game would be greatly simplified (see Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs)--then it just becomes a contest of talent evaluation. Sunk cost or not, it is still going to weigh in a decision, you want to take a chance that you can get your money's worth in a business setting. I also agree that the decision should be considered with the big picture in mind, such as if I replace this bad contract with a better performer who makes less, can I consider that I'm getting $4M of production out of the better performer ($4M being Stanton's salary plus the cost of a nominal contract like a Bray has)? The "sunk cost" argument is easy to make when you're not writing checks to a guy who no longer works for you. There is also additional cost for the replacement player.

The good news is that Dusty acknowledges that he understands money does enter into the decision, and contracts sometimes mean guys keep jobs that would otherwise be cut.

mth123
03-26-2008, 07:06 AM
But money is a factor. If money was not a factor, this game would be greatly simplified (see Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs)--then it just becomes a contest of talent evaluation. Sunk cost or not, it is still going to weigh in a decision, you want to take a chance that you can get your money's worth in a business setting. I also agree that the decision should be considered with the big picture in mind, such as if I replace this bad contract with a better performer who makes less, can I consider that I'm getting $4M of production out of the better performer ($4M being Stanton's salary plus the cost of a nominal contract like a Bray has)? The "sunk cost" argument is easy to make when you're not writing checks to a guy who no longer works for you. There is also additional cost for the replacement player.

The good news is that Dusty acknowledges that he understands money does enter into the decision, and contracts sometimes mean guys keep jobs that would otherwise be cut.

Agree. Good post.

Another point. These are contracts for future performance and those contracts can be moved in a secondary market (trades) and as such are not really "sunk costs" in the economic or accounting sense. If a guy like Stanton can be moved to a team desperate for a lefty with the Reds paying half, then the cost becomes less than the $3.5 Million that so many are so quick to chalk up as "sunk cost." We're just getting to the point in Spring where there is a lot of player movement. I think the Reds are wise to hang on through this period to see if the contract can be moved. It may come down to a "cut your losses" decision at some point, but we're not there yet IMO.

I'm happy that Dusty's quote seems to imply that they aren't simply satisfied to keep these guys and, maybe I'm reading something into it that isn't there, are willing to try to move some of these players. Honestly, before this, I assumed that the Reds were happy with Mike Stanton and were content to keep him.

rotnoid
03-26-2008, 07:27 AM
A couple things come to mind here...

First, maybe the reason BCast pushed for a "name" manager over keeping Petey Mac as has been reported, is that he knew a name manager would stand up and say some of these things. Castellini seems to know more than even his supporters give him credit for. The more good baseball men around, the better.

Second, I think mth hit the nail on the head with the sunk cost talk. Stanton's 3.5M isn't necessarily sunk, especially if it can be traded for something like Helms at 2.1M (a savings of 1.4M right there). The cost only becomes sunk if Stanton suffers a career ending injury today and cannot be moved for something else.

Topcat
03-26-2008, 07:43 AM
Have to say it is refreshing to have Dusty speak up and be Candid. Not really a fan of way he has handled things in past, but guy deserves to have some rope in that I am sure he has learned things to become better.

Chip R
03-26-2008, 09:13 AM
And you can bet the players respect that a lot more than a guy who steals chairs and jerseys..


With the possible exception of Mike Stanton. ;)

It's easy for Dusty to do this. He's the handpicked choice of the owner with a 3 year deal and he's making more money than several of the players.

Unassisted
03-26-2008, 09:46 AM
First, maybe the reason BCast pushed for a "name" manager over keeping Petey Mac as has been reported, is that he knew a name manager would stand up and say some of these things. Castellini seems to know more than even his supporters give him credit for. The more good baseball men around, the better.
Then that raises the question in my mind of whether some of the wisdom from Dusty's lips that contradicts the FO party line is coming from or sanctioned by BobCast.

I'd like to think the owner is not having his manager tug on the rug under his GM's feet, but stranger things have happened.

fearofpopvol1
03-26-2008, 11:34 AM
But money is a factor. If money was not a factor, this game would be greatly simplified (see Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs)--then it just becomes a contest of talent evaluation. Sunk cost or not, it is still going to weigh in a decision, you want to take a chance that you can get your money's worth in a business setting. I also agree that the decision should be considered with the big picture in mind, such as if I replace this bad contract with a better performer who makes less, can I consider that I'm getting $4M of production out of the better performer ($4M being Stanton's salary plus the cost of a nominal contract like a Bray has)? The "sunk cost" argument is easy to make when you're not writing checks to a guy who no longer works for you. There is also additional cost for the replacement player.

The good news is that Dusty acknowledges that he understands money does enter into the decision, and contracts sometimes mean guys keep jobs that would otherwise be cut.

I would agree to a point, but the problem is, BCast has been very open about wanting to win and putting a winning product on the field. Last year for Stanton was an asbolute disaster. He's not getting any younger and he was nothing special in spring training. If you're serious about winning and putting a winning product on the field, wouldn't you want the players who give you the best chance of accomplishing that on the field? Mike Stanton does not give you that chance. Replacing Mike Stanton with another arm could be the difference between a few games and if the Reds finish anywhere close of what they're projected to, that could be a huge difference maker.

savafan
03-26-2008, 11:40 AM
This is a perfect example of why some people (like me) hate it when mediocre at best relievers are given million dollar contracts.

Some claim it is only,for example, $3MM. While true, it is also money better spent elsewhere when the guy getting it isn't going to materially improve the franchise. It also helps him get on the roster when he might not deserve it otherwise.

In Krivsky's defense, when Stanton was signed he was a little bit better than a mediocre at best reliever.

11larkin11
03-26-2008, 11:43 AM
Money doesn't matter? Does that mean we're gonna sign Yu Darvish? (check CTR's blog)

traderumor
03-26-2008, 01:13 PM
I would agree to a point, but the problem is, BCast has been very open about wanting to win and putting a winning product on the field. Last year for Stanton was an asbolute disaster. He's not getting any younger and he was nothing special in spring training. If you're serious about winning and putting a winning product on the field, wouldn't you want the players who give you the best chance of accomplishing that on the field? Mike Stanton does not give you that chance. Replacing Mike Stanton with another arm could be the difference between a few games and if the Reds finish anywhere close of what they're projected to, that could be a huge difference maker.It is the tension of the game ever since there have been contracts and limited funds. It will continue to be, and using the term "sunk costs" to get rid of a perceived problem is little more than shoving an elephant under a carpet.

BTW, if Dusty really wants to make a statement, if they make him keep Stanton, just don't use him in any important situations. That will go farther and speak louder than this brave talk to the media.

Falls City Beer
03-26-2008, 01:29 PM
It is the tension of the game ever since there have been contracts and limited funds. It will continue to be, and using the term "sunk costs" to get rid of a perceived problem is little more than shoving an elephant under a carpet.

BTW, if Dusty really wants to make a statement, if they make him keep Stanton, just don't use him in any important situations. That will go farther and speak louder than this brave talk to the media.

How would that speak louder?

And frankly, it is risky talk. While Dusty may have Cast's support right now, he understands that he may not by midseason. The cautious way would have buried Stanton as the mop-up man when a better option existed.

Rocking the status quo boat is risky--especially in a world of stuffed suits that ride the calm waters they produce. Now I'm guessing Dusty hasn't totally angered Krivsky at this point because he didn't call any single player out by name, but he said what most of us are thinking, and he should be applauded for his directness, IMO.

edabbs44
03-26-2008, 01:36 PM
In Krivsky's defense, when Stanton was signed he was a little bit better than a mediocre at best reliever.

Depends on what you consider "better than mediocre". His numbers weren't very promising in 2006. Or at least promising enough that would warrant a 2 year deal with an appearance clause for a third.

Also depends on whether or not you believe a GM should try and project what a mediocre 39 year old pitcher will look like as a 40 and 41 year old. Especially when moving from two pitcher's parks to GABP.

traderumor
03-26-2008, 03:23 PM
How would that speak louder?

And frankly, it is risky talk. While Dusty may have Cast's support right now, he understands that he may not by midseason. The cautious way would have buried Stanton as the mop-up man when a better option existed.

Rocking the status quo boat is risky--especially in a world of stuffed suits that ride the calm waters they produce. Now I'm guessing Dusty hasn't totally angered Krivsky at this point because he didn't call any single player out by name, but he said what most of us are thinking, and he should be applauded for his directness, IMO.Actions speak louder than talking to others through other people. If he felt this way and really wanted to be brave, he would say this to Krivsky and Castellini in a meeting rather than tattling to sportswriters. But then, he may be saying what he's saying at their behest.

fearofpopvol1
03-26-2008, 04:18 PM
It is the tension of the game ever since there have been contracts and limited funds. It will continue to be, and using the term "sunk costs" to get rid of a perceived problem is little more than shoving an elephant under a carpet.

BTW, if Dusty really wants to make a statement, if they make him keep Stanton, just don't use him in any important situations. That will go farther and speak louder than this brave talk to the media.

I still disagree. The money is already spent so it is a sunk cost. Yes, there is a chance that Stanton could rebound and have a better year, but the odds are stacked against him. If you want the best players on the field, money shouldn't be a factor. Dusty is right this time.

REDREAD
03-26-2008, 04:57 PM
Actions speak louder than talking to others through other people. If he felt this way and really wanted to be brave, he would say this to Krivsky and Castellini in a meeting rather than tattling to sportswriters. But then, he may be saying what he's saying at their behest.

My guess is that Dusty has clearly told Wayne and Cast who he feels should be on the team or not. Dusty isn't some puppet, he's shown that.

I'm sure when Dusty interviewed, he made it clear he wanted input on roster decisions and player moves. A guy like Dusty isn't just going to sit back and smile while towing the company line as someone like Miley would in order to keep a job.

traderumor
03-26-2008, 05:11 PM
I still disagree. The money is already spent so it is a sunk cost. Yes, there is a chance that Stanton could rebound and have a better year, but the odds are stacked against him. If you want the best players on the field, money shouldn't be a factor. Dusty is right this time.See mth123 post. The checks haven't been cut yet. The Reds should try to flip him, pay part of the salary for a prospect, etc. When you say "sunk cost" you are implying DFA, the MLB version of cutting. At this point, it is premature to call it a "sunk cost." It is only that when you have exhausted all avenues and want to pay the man to not pitch for you. BTW, I am an accountant, I have considered the terms a few times in my days.

fearofpopvol1
03-26-2008, 05:15 PM
See mth123 post. The checks haven't been cut yet. The Reds should try to flip him, pay part of the salary for a prospect, etc. When you say "sunk cost" you are implying DFA, the MLB version of cutting. At this point, it is premature to call it a "sunk cost." It is only that when you have exhausted all avenues and want to pay the man to not pitch for you. BTW, I am an accountant, I have considered the terms a few times in my days.

I was implying sunk cost because he is on the books as of right now. If they can trade Stanton, by all means, cut him and hope for a trade. Whatever it takes.

Falls City Beer
03-26-2008, 06:32 PM
If you're going to trade him, trade him now. Once he starts throwing pitches in earnest, it's going to get ugly.