Shouldnt we follow the Tampa Bay model?

[icehole3]

Shouldnt the goal be to win and win using the least amount of money posssible? If that is the case shouldnt we be following the Tampa Bay model? They clearly understand how to get this done and if Im Jocketty Im waiting out the market and grabbing guys at the discount price like they got last year in Jeremy Affeldt guys like that. Then in spring training open up some roster spots for the best rookie batter and pitcher. I found this at Biz Baseball it shows the teams getting the best bang for their buck. We've come a long way in our minor league system over the last half dozen years and I wouldnt be upset at all with a team of young players busting their butts all summer along with good solid pitching this team will surprise.

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.p...nion&Itemid=41

[Highlifeman21]

What are they using to determine Marginal Payroll?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

What are they using to determine Marginal Payroll?

I believe it is total salaries minus minimum required salaries.

Originally Posted by Icehole3

Shouldnt the goal be to win and win using the least amount of money posssible?

As for the question above, sort of... The goal has to be first to win and that has absolutely nothing to do with money. Talent is the determinant. Money just drives the how of talent acquisition. Every team has some budget, determined by some combination of gate revenue, media contracts, licensing, etc. You obviously have to win without going out of business. So along the way, it behooves you to get the most bang for your buck. However, almost inevitably, you will need some inefficient spending to get over the top. A roster full of 1 win players making the major league minimum will give you great "bang for your buck". Unfortunately, it will also leave you sitting home in October.

So the more realistic formula is to add enough talent on the cheap (bargains, developed players, etc.) that have enough budget left to add the talent you need to win through less cost effective channels. Talent is rare enough and hard enough to acquire that it's a question of what sources in what proportion -- you can't rely on building through just one channel.

I think what's often not considered is that the most bang for your buck probably comes off the field. It's paying the best scouts, the best coaches, etc. The difference in salaries between the best personnel and the worst is likely less than $8M -- or two wins bought in free agency. The bang for that buck is off the charts. If you have the worst personnel in your organization, there's not a team this side of the Yankees who can buy back that deficiency in free agency.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I believe it is total salaries minus minimum required salaries.

So it's basically your total salaries minus $10,920,000, which they've deemed the basement minimum for salaries....

Interesting...

$436,800 per man on the 25 man roster

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

What are they using to determine Marginal Payroll?

The cost of filling a roster with all replacement level players that by definition make only league minimum. Generally such a team would win roughly 45 to 50 games (it varies a little every season but a winning percentage of .300 is a good estimate).

Any win above what a replacement level team would provide is a marginal win.

So thinking in these terms, cost per marginal win would be calculated like so:

(Payroll-cost of a roster of replacement players)/ (total wins- replacement wins).

So for the Reds in '08: ($74,117,695- (390,00*28))/(74-48.5)= $2.5M/marginal win.

18 teams paid less per marginal win than the Reds did in '08. Any guess who paid the most per marginal win....Bill Bavasi. Hopefully, he's not in on related discussion within the Reds FO this winter.....

[RedsManRick]

The average team paid $2.7M per marginal win. The average marginal win cost $2.4M. The Reds were pretty much right on line with average. The problem of course is that when your salary base is below average and you're only getting average benefit from that expenditure, you've got no shot.

Figure you've got to get 40 marginal wins to have a shot at the playoffs. You can spend a lot and be inefficient or you can spend a little and be very efficient. But if you spend a little and are just average, you can see where it leaves you.

[IslandRed]

Shouldnt we be following the Tampa Bay model? They clearly understand how to get this done

You're forgetting one key part of the plan: Being the worst, or nearly the worst, team in baseball for a decade so high draft picks can be stockpiled. They still deserve credit for hitting the picks -- Pittsburgh and Kansas City are proof that just drafting high isn't enough -- and make no mistake, they did a nice job transitioning quickly from a collection of young talent to a coherent ballclub. But nonetheless, it's not a plan another team can easily reproduce without having the Longorias and Prices available to them on draft day.

So are we suggesting the Reds ought to lose even more for awhile? :

[RedlegJake]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I think what's often not considered is that the most bang for your buck probably comes off the field. It's paying the best scouts, the best coaches, etc. The difference in salaries between the best personnel and the worst is likely less than $8M -- or two wins bought in free agency. The bang for that buck is off the charts. If you have the worst personnel in your organization, there's not a team this side of the Yankees who can buy back that deficiency in free agency.

Wow. I've thought this but you put it succinctly - and I think it's an area where a team could really pick up an edge because baseball is such a clubby business. Whenever a team hires a new coach or manager or scout in its minor leagues you usually recognize the name as a retired player from that same organization. It's as if baseball's promary qualification isn't being good at coaching, scouting or teaching but just being part of the family. Reminds me of a businessman who hires his kids and nieces and nephews for management positions just because they're "his". If or when they fail he just moves them to a new position instead of canning them outright. In baseball I think only the top guys ever get the axe. Everyone else gets recycled.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by IslandRed

You're forgetting one key part of the plan: Being the worst, or nearly the worst, team in baseball for a decade so high draft picks can be stockpiled. They still deserve credit for hitting the picks -- Pittsburgh and Kansas City are proof that just drafting high isn't enough -- and make no mistake, they did a nice job transitioning quickly from a collection of young talent to a coherent ballclub. But nonetheless, it's not a plan another team can easily reproduce without having the Longorias and Prices available to them on draft day.

So are we suggesting the Reds ought to lose even more for awhile? :

That is not an accurate description of Tampa Bay's rise.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by jojo

That is not an accurate description of Tampa Bay's rise.

But it is a central part of it.

That and having made several good trades over the last couple of seasons.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

But it is a central part of it.

That and having made several good trades over the last couple of seasons.

Drafting smart, investing in player development, doing player development very, very well, making smart trades, managing the roster well, and also getting a little lucky all by blending scouting and sabermetrics is really the central part of their plan.

[RedlegJake]

Originally Posted by jojo

Drafting smart, investing in player development, doing player development very, very well, making smart trades, managing the roster well, and also getting a little lucky all by blending scouting and sabermetrics is really the central part of their plan.

I'll agree with that but I think things came together three years ago when Sternberg took over, fired Hoyt and put an actual plan in place. They took advantage of the losing years by leveraging the high picks and drafts with shrewd trades and good player development. Before that they were totally lost. What many knock as ten years of losing and suddenly all the good picks practically force them to win is partially accurate but without Sternberg's taking control the Rays would still be losing.

When you look at how he built the team the draft picks are there- but a lot of them were traded for pieces, then as the team got better they got some key free agents and made very few mistakes with bad contracts. Now they've begun signing a few key players to LT contracts to try and extend the time they control them. What Sternberg did was take a lousy team without a plan under Hoyt and took full advantage of the losing in his new plan - making the losing years a key element in a pretty quick turn around.
That's what a shrewd and calculating owner can do for you.

Offense:
Carl Crawford - 2nd round draft pick.
Rocco Baldelli - 1st round draft pick.
BJ Upton - 1st round draft pick.
Evan Longoria - 1st round draft pick.
Dioner Navarro - from Dodgers for Toby Hall (9th rd) and Mark Hendrickson (2003 trade).
Carlos Pena - free agent.
Akinori Iwamura - free agent (Japan).
Cliff Floyd - free agent.
Jason Bartlett - from Minnesota for Delmon Young (1st rounder).

Pitching:
Matt Garza - from Minnesota for Delmon Young (1st rounder).
Scott Kazmir - from the Mets for Victor Zambrano (free agent signee)
Andy Sonnanstine - 13th rounder
James Shields - 16th rounder
Edwin Jackson - from Dodgers for closer Danys Baez (free agent signee)
David Price - 1st rounder
Dan Wheeler - from Houston for Ty Wigginton (free agent signee)
JP Howell - from Kansas City for Joey Gaithright (32d round)
Grant Balfour - from Milwaukee for Seth McClung (5th rounder)

Of their 18 principal players 9 were 1st or 2nd rounders or acquired by trading same. Overall 12 were acquired through the draft or by trading drafted players. 2 were acquired by trading free agents that had signed under the old regime for better players in Jackson and Kazmir. The only free agent signed by the Sternberg regime that was traded was Wigginton. All the rest of Sternberg's FA signings were part and parcel of Tampa's success. Whatever you think of Tampa you have to give Sternberg credit. I wish the Cast was more like him.

[RedsManRick]

Two moves made by Tampa Bay that are somewhat pertinent to our current situation:

Iwamura moving from 3B to 2B to make room for Longoria and Upton moving from 2B to CF to allow that to happen. That combination of moves drastically upgraded the Tampa Bay defense with no additional cost.

It would be remiss to ignore the utilization of the talent which they had. And that includes trading pitching for a catcher and trading a top OF prospect for a defensive SS. The moves of the last two years were an exemplary case of improving a team, addressing issues, through a more efficient use of existing resources. Even if you take away the arrival of Longoria, that's still a team that improves by 20+ wins.

[blumj]

They also had a playoff spot virtually locked up before they'd gotten anything from Baldelli or Price.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by blumj

They also had a playoff spot virtually locked up before they'd gotten anything from Baldelli or Price.

Yes. It's very difficult to make a convincing argument that Tampa's success was largely due to their failure (more than skillful execution) when the facts are closely examined.