The Shapiro & Rogers Megathread

[fbalmeida]

An Extension???!!

We have no pitching, awful at defense and a suspect offense. Our attendance has been decimated and we might lose 100 games this year. We have little to show for it other than Bo. Literally one player.

Dombrowski is available Rogers - salvage this car crash.

Given the tools and budgets that were at his disposal and the results he got from them, I'd actually prefer to have Shapiro and Atkins lead this campaign to where it may go. We do have an imbalanced team, and they haven't shown any competence in executing trades. But the outlook with our front-loaded talent is interesting. We need pitching, but we do have Pearson, Kay, Zeuch, Waguespack, Thornton, Reid-Foley, and Yennsy Díaz in the pipeline. Woods-Richardson has been dominant in A-ball at 18. And then there's the potential of guys like Pardinho and Alek Manoah.

I've been extremely critical of the consistently disappointing returns from their trades. The Stroman trade was predicated on the potential development of Woods-Richardson and Kay, and well, they're developing above expectations. Shatkins have fostered an impressive farm system, as well as an open culture that's allowed several players to make good strides.

Let's see where this goes.

[Schad]

Would you fire this GM, who through three years:

- Was an incredible 148 games below .500. They lost an average of more than 100 games.
- Had the worst defense in baseball in year three. They fell from 21st the year before he was hired to 24th, then 29th, and finally 30th.
- Also featured below-average hitting and a below-average pitching staff each year, including the worst bullpen in baseball in two of the three seasons.
- Combine the three seasons and they were 28th offensively (by wRC+), 28th defensively, and had the 30th-ranked pitching staff (by fWAR).
- Saw attendance fall by almost half from its peak a few years previous.
- Not only traded or allowed to walk multiple former All-Stars, but several that were future All-Stars. He even traded a future 3x All-Star for another guy who'd be an All-Star, only to trade that guy for a minor league reliever who never made the majors!

If the answer is yes, and let's face it, that would have been your answer, congrats! You have fired Jeff Luhnow, one of the best GMs in baseball, and you have likely replaced him with anyone willing to throw around assets prematurely and have a couple fairly good years. Luhnow has instead turned the Astros into a perennial contender that will win 100+ for the third consecutive year.

If your only metric for whether someone is doing a good job is whether the team is better right this very instant, you're going to hire a lot of Brodie Van Wagenen types and wonder why the team never actually competes.

[Black Watch]

I'd extend Shapiro another 5 years.

[Tanner]

Extend Shapiro. I am less optimistic about Ross Atkins.

[ratul]

Lol, it is amazing how the pablum on Shats continues to evolve. First, he was Billy Beane! Then he is like the Tampa Bay front office! Oh wait, neither of those worked out and so now, he is very similar to the Houston GM!

Of course, sadly, facts remain horrendously intrusive to these evolving narratives, as below:

1. Jeff Luhnow (GM of the Astros) started in December 2011 as GM - you are including, in your count, the 2011 season for the Astros when he wasn't GM. The 2011 Astros, that were the worst team in the league, Luhnow wasn't GM
2. We can ignore the fact that Luhnow took over the worst team in the majors when he started in December 2011. Literally, the worst team in the league before his arrival. Of course, we can assume his situation is similar to Shats who was handed an ALCS team in 2016. I don't mind, happy to join the false equivalency brigade.

Then of course, we should compare records
Jeff Luhnow
Career Win percentage as a GM in Houston: 0.504
Seasons: 8
Division titles: 3 (including this year)
Playoff appearances: 4 (including this year)
Percentage of years in the playoffs: 50%

By comparison, our good friend Shats

Shats
Career Win percentage as a GM in Cleveland and Toronto: .485
Seasons: 19
Division titles: 1 (2 if you include 2001 as he was handed a perennial contender in Cleveland)
Playoff appearances: 2 (4 if you include the 2001 and 2016 playoff teams shats inherited)
Percentage of years in the playoffs: 10%; 20% including 2001 and 2016


Shats is not Billy Beane; he's not Tampa Bay management and he's not the Houston GM. Heck, he's not even Double A. We have no pitching or defense and we may lose 100 games with a decimated attendance while Dave Dombrowski is potentially waiting for our call. Extending these morons would be certifiably insane. My hope is that they are gone the day after game 162.

[Schad]

Lol, it is amazing how the pablum on Shats continues to evolve. First, he was Billy Beane! Then he is like the Tampa Bay front office! Oh wait, neither of those worked out and so now, he is very similar to the Houston GM!

Of course, sadly, facts remain horrendously intrusive to these evolving narratives, as below:

1. Jeff Luhnow (GM of the Astros) started in December 2011 as GM - you are including, in your count, the 2011 season for the Astros when he wasn't GM. The 2011 Astros, that were the worst team in the league, Luhnow wasn't GM

No, I'm not. That was 2012-2014.

2. We can ignore the fact that Luhnow took over the worst team in the majors when he started in December 2011. Literally, the worst team in the league before his arrival. Of course, we can assume his situation is similar to Shats who was handed an ALCS team in 2016. I don't mind, happy to join the false equivalency brigade.

The Astros were the worst team in baseball because they were rebuilding. Because rebuilding is a good way to end up with a good team. The Astros ended up with a good team because Luhnow allowed their young talent to develop after he (and Ed Wade before him) made the very necessary decision to go scorched earth on an old team that wasn't going to get any better. Luhnow took over the worst team in baseball and made them worse, and that was a good thing.

Then of course, we should compare records
Jeff Luhnow
Career Win percentage as a GM in Houston: 0.504
Seasons: 8
Division titles: 3 (including this year)
Playoff appearances: 4 (including this year)
Percentage of years in the playoffs: 50%

By comparison, our good friend Shats

Shats
Career Win percentage as a GM in Cleveland and Toronto: .485
Seasons: 19
Division titles: 1 (2 if you include 2001 as he was handed a perennial contender in Cleveland)
Playoff appearances: 2 (4 if you include the 2001 and 2016 playoff teams shats inherited)
Percentage of years in the playoffs: 10%; 20% including 2001 and 2016

Yeah, it turns out that if you let a GM see a rebuild through to fruition, they look better. After five years, Luhnow was at:

Win%: .427.
Seasons: 5.
Division titles: 0.
Playoff appearances: 1.
Percentage of years in the playoffs: 20%.

You'd have been braying for his head long before they became world-beaters, and then you'd credit his successor who kept the same players but hired a new dugout attendant, because you seem incapable of pairing cause with effect.

Shats is not Billy Beane; he's not Tampa Bay management and he's not the Houston GM. Heck, he's not even Double A. We have no pitching or defense and we may lose 100 games with a decimated attendance while Dave Dombrowski is potentially waiting for our call. Extending these morons would be certifiably insane. My hope is that they are gone the day after game 162.

The Houston GM who had no pitching or defense for the first three years of his tenure while he accumulated young talent in a very similar fashion to what our current managerial team is doing.

[ratul]

Lol, even when you take a GM who took over the worst team in baseball, select a smaller sample size to fit your narrative, he still had a better playoff record than Shats.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Shats was awful in Cleveland and decimated the fan base. He is doing the same in Toronto yet somehow believe the outcome will be different. L.O.L

[phillipmike]

Good ol ratool. Doesn’t understand baseball, posts always give me a good laugh at how someone could be so clueless.

[ratul]

Good ol ratool. Doesn’t understand baseball, posts always give me a good laugh at how someone could be so clueless.

Thanks for your contribution big guy.

[phillipmike]

Good ol ratool. Doesn’t understand baseball, posts always give me a good laugh at how someone could be so clueless.

Thanks for your contribution big guy.

It’s more useful and insightful than yours, ratool.

Love that Shapiro is still here and you are so sensitive and triggered by the his presence. Love it. Must cry yourself to sleep every night, “like yesterday”.

[fbalmeida]

Shapiro has done a remarkable job of rebuilding the farm system, which is the best vector to have for establishing long term winning.

I say hear him out. Where I'd disagree is that rebuilding shouldn't necessarily have required short-to-mid-term 100 loss type losing. I've had this exchange before, so I'll add something new to it:

I'm not the least bit enchanted by the statistical voodoo of the current era. Naturally, sabermetrics insofar as they provide information, are useful in making decisions. But when we start assessing how a player is deemed as more likely to play better or worse, eventually, than he actually has, simply because he casually conforms to specific statistical parameters, such as swinging for a certain percentage of balls outside the strike zone, we are arriving at the same limits (and follies of arrogance) of formulating hard predictions on regression analysis and correlational big-data.

[Schad]

Shapiro has done a remarkable job of rebuilding the farm system, which is the best vector to have for establishing long term winning.

I say hear him out. Where I'd disagree is that rebuilding shouldn't necessarily have required short-to-mid-term 100 loss type losing. I've had this exchange before, so I'll add something new to it:

I'm not the least bit enchanted by the statistical voodoo of the current era. Naturally, sabermetrics insofar as they provide information, are useful in making decisions. But when we start assessing how a player is deemed as more likely to play better or worse, eventually, than he actually has, simply because he casually conforms to specific statistical parameters, such as swinging for a certain percentage of balls outside the strike zone, we are arriving at the same limits (and follies of arrogance) of formulating hard predictions on regression analysis and correlational big-data.

It's a worthwhile argument, and it's where some doctrinal flexibility really matters. In the aggregate, the numbers suggest that certain types of players and certain approaches and certain pitches are more successful, and in a team like the Astros you can see that bear out: they've specifically targeted the types that their numbers suggest will work. But that definitely doesn't mean that all players like that will succeed, and it doesn't mean that less typical players will not.

The math right now favours building through a host of young players, but you can absolutely build a successful team without a complete teardown, and there was a point a couple years ago where that might have been possible in our case. I might have advocated for a teardown anyway, but it was an option. That option expired when we kept trying to compete, IMO; it's not like we've been moving players with copious team control, and I don't think we could have rushed things without seriously undermining our future (again).

[The_Hater]

Lol, even when you take a GM who took over the worst team in baseball, select a smaller sample size to fit your narrative, he still had a better playoff record than Shats.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Shats was awful in Cleveland and decimated the fan base. He is doing the same in Toronto yet somehow believe the outcome will be different. L.O.L

You can’t even take enough time to look up google to find out the correct dates that the GM whom you’re praising left and right was also employed while the Astros were the worst team on the planet, you missed by 3 entire years of Astro ineptitude. and you think it’s Schad who is the the one manipulating dates to fit a narrative? Wow.

I honestly think your have mental health issues. Either that or you’re such a narcissist that you’re incapable of recognizing when somebody has so much more knowledge than you on a particular subject that perhaps they’re not the best person to enter a debate with. Yet you continually do this over and over again to the amusement of everyone reading on this site.

[dagger]

Shapiro has done a remarkable job of rebuilding the farm system, which is the best vector to have for establishing long term winning.

I say hear him out. Where I'd disagree is that rebuilding shouldn't necessarily have required short-to-mid-term 100 loss type losing. I've had this exchange before, so I'll add something new to it:

I'm not the least bit enchanted by the statistical voodoo of the current era. Naturally, sabermetrics insofar as they provide information, are useful in making decisions. But when we start assessing how a player is deemed as more likely to play better or worse, eventually, than he actually has, simply because he casually conforms to specific statistical parameters, such as swinging for a certain percentage of balls outside the strike zone, we are arriving at the same limits (and follies of arrogance) of formulating hard predictions on regression analysis and correlational big-data.

It's a worthwhile argument, and it's where some doctrinal flexibility really matters. In the aggregate, the numbers suggest that certain types of players and certain approaches and certain pitches are more successful, and in a team like the Astros you can see that bear out: they've specifically targeted the types that their numbers suggest will work. But that definitely doesn't mean that all players like that will succeed, and it doesn't mean that less typical players will not.

The math right now favours building through a host of young players, but you can absolutely build a successful team without a complete teardown, and there was a point a couple years ago where that might have been possible in our case. I might have advocated for a teardown anyway, but it was an option. That option expired when we kept trying to compete, IMO; it's not like we've been moving players with copious team control, and I don't think we could have rushed things without seriously undermining our future (again).

Keeping up the revenue stream and profitability clearly played into the need for management to keep a "competitive" team on the field in 2017. The seats were filled, so there was enough revenue to cover expenses and likely make some money, both in the operation itself and secondarily through TV advertising based on a large number of eyes watching the games on the tube. Next season is going to be very interesting in that regard. If the mandate for Shapiro to make money again? The payroll commitments are so small, even with the reduced attendance and TV ratings, they can probably make money if they don't spend. So I'll be intrigued by the size of the payroll - they don't have to make any showy FA signings, and likely won't but they could do a Liriano type trade to generate more prospect capital for the near future. Liriano gave them a good season and got them Reese McGuire and Teoscar Hernandez, the latter when they flipped Lirano to the Astros. But Liriano's significant year of salary was the carrot for the Pirates to deal McGuire (and Harold Ramirez). I'm skeptical the Jays will go this route, because I've been watching the bloodbath at Rogers Media - so many Sportsnet and Fan590 personalities and producers have been shown the door that you have to wonder what constraints will be imposed on the Jays. Rogers' lousy NHL deal may be behind it all, and it would be infuriating to think it impacts the fortunes of the baseball team.

[ratul]

Lol, even when you take a GM who took over the worst team in baseball, select a smaller sample size to fit your narrative, he still had a better playoff record than Shats.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Shats was awful in Cleveland and decimated the fan base. He is doing the same in Toronto yet somehow believe the outcome will be different. L.O.L

You can’t even take enough time to look up google to find out the correct dates that the GM whom you’re praising left and right was also employed while the Astros were the worst team on the planet, you missed by 3 entire years of Astro ineptitude. and you think it’s Schad who is the the one manipulating dates to fit a narrative? Wow.

I honestly think your have mental health issues. Either that or you’re such a narcissist that you’re incapable of recognizing when somebody has so much more knowledge than you on a particular subject that perhaps they’re not the best person to enter a debate with. Yet you continually do this over and over again to the amusement of everyone reading on this site.

You're Joking right?


2011 Astros; 56-106
Luhnow takes over in December 2011
2012 Astros: 55-107
2013 Astros: 51-111
2014 Astros: 70-92
2015 Astros: 86-76

Luhnow improved by 15-20 games in three years, after taking over the worst team in baseball.

By comparision
2015 Blue Jays: 93-69
Shats takes over end of 2015 season
2016 Blue Jays: 89-73
2017 Blue Jays: 76-86
2018 Blue Jays: 73-89
2019 Blue Jays: 57-89

Shats made the team worse by 20 games after three years. It's even worse after four years

To suggest, in any way, that Shats is like the Houston GM is absurd. If anything, they are literally the opposite.

[BigLeagueChew]

Comparing overall records again. It's a vicious circle.

[Schad]

Luhnow took over in the depths of a rebuild, and left them in a rebuild. Had he taken over a year previous, the exact same pattern would have played out, only suddenly he wouldn't have "improved" the team all the way from 55 to 70 wins...he'd have overseen a decline.

Who is the better GM:

- Took over after a 77 win season; they had won 92 the year previous.
- Led them to 80 wins the next year...and then down to 68 the following season.
- Was replaced as GM.

or

- Took over after a below .500 season.
- Within four years, had the team at 88 wins, having acquired that year's Cy Young winner (a future Hall of Famer).
- Would sign/trade for numerous other big names.

The first GM is Matt Silverman in Tampa Bay, one of the most highly-respected baseball-knowers in the league, and he was replaced as GM because he was promoted to president. Seems crazy, right? He took over day-to-day on a team that had been above .500 in six of seven seasons, and which had made the playoffs four times, and he quickly took them to the basement...and for that he got an exec-level office, and had Tampa not given him such, someone else would have. Because he had set them up very well for the future, and the moves he made then (and the moves he/Lukevics have made since) have positioned them to make the playoffs under extremely difficult circumstances.

The second GM is Gord Ash. Because of Ash's attempts -- likely driven by ownership -- to keep going for it rather than rebuilding, he wasted the Delgado/Green era and the first half of the Halladay era. It would have been far better for our future had he not been so fixated on immediate results.

Compared to other sports, time in baseball is measured almost in geologic era. The moves made today are more likely to affect things five years from now than five months. Judging executives by what is happening right now, without consideration of context, is stupid. On some level, you know it is stupid, because you have demonstrated a grasp of the basic fundamentals of language, and this is not a concept much more complicated than stringing together a few nouns and verbs.

[raptorsfan2018]

Hello everyone, I’m new around here. Joined up when the Raps won. Baseball is a passion and love to chat about.

[Wo1verine]

Shapiro doesn't sound like someone who is eager to spend meaningful money anytime soon.

[SharoneWright]

Shapiro doesn't sound like someone who is eager to spend meaningful money anytime soon.

Not sure Rogers has a lot of money to spend any time soon...

We might have to wait a couple years to see what kind of pitching bubbles up from our system. I'm really liking the pipeline, but the next 1-2 years is still a bit of a dead zone until the low-minors guys grow up. But the depth and talent of this list looks great to me:

Borucki
Kay
Pearson
Zeuch
Thornton
Manoah
Kloff
SWR
Williams
Pardinho
Luciano