The Brilliance of Jack Zduriencik
The single most important aspect of sustaining a successful business is to distribute value equally amongst one’s assets.
The single most important aspect of sustaining a successful baseball organization is to distribute value equally amongst one’s assets.
Sense a similarity?
It ain't easy being a playa.
Jack Zduriencik is single-handedly proving that the “big-name free agent” is an inessential part of a winning baseball team. In fact, I would argue that GMZ is proving that the “big-name free agent” often causes more harm than good to a baseball team because by investing in one particular – and potentially spectacular – player, a high degree of risk is involved. Two problems are inherent in placing a significant amount of a team’s total value in one player.
___1) Injury: If the player gets hurt and has to miss a large amount of time recovering, the team as a whole loses a disconcertingly big amount of value (think ‘09 Chicago Cubs).
___2) Sporadic lack of production: If the player suddenly stops being productive for one reason or another, you’ve just bought yourself an albatross, presumably for a regrettably long period of time. (Note: this phenomenon is generally due to some overlooked factor like age.)
Exhibit A (The 2009 Mariners): On June 21st, with the M’s in the thick of the playoff race, Yuniesky Betancourt decides to collide with slick-fielding Endy Chavez in midair, knocking Chavez out for the season. Ryan Langerhans, Bill Hall, and Michael Saunders step in and make us forget Endy ever existed in a Mariners uniform. Later in the season, Adrian Beltre misses 6 weeks, and M’s fans are ready to put themselves on suicide watch. Fortunately, Z pulls Jack Hannahan out of a hat, who turns out a Beltre-esque UZR and even adds a respectable .311 OBP to boot. Then, newly acquired Jack Wilson injures his heel. No problem: His “J Wilson” counterpart, Josh, produces at a similar level both offensively and defensively during Jack’s absence.
The Seattle Mariners are going to be a successful baseball organization for years to come because Jack Zduriencik spreads value amongst an entire team instead of clustering it in several outstanding players.
(PS: If this is not LL-worthy, tell me, and I'll take this down.)
4 recs |
39 comments
Comments
Nice post
You’re my idol
My Mariners blog - SodoMojo Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!
by gregrabble on Oct 16, 2009 10:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No, this is LL worthy and pretty awesome.
I’m curious to see how he’ll divvy up the free agent money this offseason, and what he’ll do with guys like Jack Wilson etc. He has a great scouting sense for buy on the margin. The results should only get better.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/
by JY on Oct 16, 2009 10:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's almost impossible to win without star players
and if we were to land, say, Matt Holliday I’d be ecstatic
by Poochie on Oct 16, 2009 11:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You can get star players without targeting big name free agents
by Fogel on Oct 16, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for clearning that up
I assumed Fogel was referring to developing star players, something the Mariners haven’t been very good at of late. By pointing out the prospect I thought most likely to be a star in the M’s system I was affirming his statement.
by Sam Page on Oct 16, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that you shouldn't limit yourself to one method of acquiring star players.
Especially if you are a team that has a revenue stream as high as the Mariners. You should avoid bad contracts and landmines, sure, but that doesn’t mean you should never give out big FA contracts if it makes sense.
by acblue on Oct 16, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I agree
The Mariners will be players for big FA’s in the near future, and Fogel’s statement wasn’t exclusive. I don’t think it’d be wise to bid on Holliday specifically, getting back to the original comment, since the Mets, Red Sox, and Yankees will all have holes in left field.
by Sam Page on Oct 17, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I think the meaining of that was that while you should acquire good free agents whenever possible
Often the top name on the market for a particular positon is not worth the money he will require to purchase and therefore to acquire the wisest acquisitions through free agency you should pay for the best value on the market rather than the best talent if that talent commands way more money than they should due to high demand.
by OlSalty on Oct 17, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bid doesn't cost you anything
at worst you could drive his price up for other teams
by Poochie on Oct 19, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
seriously bid*
I didn’t mean that strictly literally.
by Sam Page on Oct 22, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but you have to give up something.
It’s really hard to rip people off for star players on the trade market; you can get decent value, but the Mariners aren’t really in a position to trade the farm system for 5-6 win players. I’m not convinced that going after Holliday is all that smart, but sometimes paying big on the FA market makes sense. I think that some have gone a bit too far to the side of loving undervalued role players that they neglect the fact that you can’t win with a roster full of undervalued role players.
by acblue on Oct 16, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking more along the lines of homegrown stars like Felix
by Fogel on Oct 16, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Mets would be a better contrast than the Cubs
The disparity between Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes and Jeremy Reed, Alex Cora is slightly noticeable as a fan.
by Sam Page on Oct 16, 2009 11:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
Though the reason FA has been seen as “bad” of late is because:
a) The per win money is often spent on average/mediocre players, and those are easier to grow at home. Why spend 4 million per win when you can get that win from a cheap nobody, unless it is a position of serious weakness and you need to fill a hole without other options. Also, 1/2 win players during the height of their careers have nowhere to go but down.
b) The money spent uses up resources that the team may not have, and so they cannot spend their money elsewhere.
Still, if you get a team that has a high payroll, and the budget to use it there is no reason not to spend away. Spending 48 million on Carlos Silva is annoying as shit, but if we had 300 million to spend per year, that annoyance would be relative. So the degree that the albatross really matters to the teams health is the degree that it affects the budget for building a successful team.
I hate hearing how much money is spent on free agents, but it really wouldn’t be that bad if the free agents were also good and useful, and helped us win, with good logic involved. I wouldn’t even be that bothered with overpaying, really, depending on how much of an overpay it was and how well the player helps our lineup.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Oct 17, 2009 12:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It was a good write up.
You need a bit more confidence though. You shouldn’t have to ask if it is LL worthy. You let the commenters decide that after you post it.
2009 Safeco Field Record: 6-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 10-4
by Fin on Oct 17, 2009 10:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent post, but to be fair to Jack
No problem: His "J Wilson" counterpart, Josh, produces at a similar level both offensively and defensively during Jack’s absence.
Jack’s UZR/150 at SS with the M’s: 9.8
Josh’s UZR/150 at SS with the M’s: 1.8
I know it’s a microscopic sample size, but the sample still shows a rather large difference in defensive performance which I tend to think is pretty reliable given their respective defensive career performance. I could be wrong about that. Hope this works, I just wanted my first post to be something relatively substantive.
by stupidquestions on Oct 17, 2009 12:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
While it is true there is a large difference with the small sample size, that can be explained that Jack Wilson wasn't completely healthy his entire time in Seattle.
I would expect his defensive numbers to improve next season, but probably not as high as his Pittsburgh days considering he is a year older.
by Wilder. on Oct 17, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah shiz.
Just realized you were discussing the difference between Ja. Wilson and Jo. Wilson.
by Wilder. on Oct 17, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's right
I didn’t include Jack’s injury in my comparison. With the Pirates this year, he was playing an insane 17.2 UZR/150 SS. That was after a 15.0 UZR/150 in 2008. Now, his 2008 was a relatively small sample as well (only 88 DG) and with the Pirates this year he had 106 DG. What this means as far as future defense, I don’t know. Would it be safe to project him a 5<x<10 SS?
by stupidquestions on Oct 17, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Griffey was a big name free agent.
Jack signed Griffey.
by Wilder. on Oct 17, 2009 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But we didn't sign Mark Grudzielanek.
That guy was the biggest named free agent in 2009.
...and now I'm here
by Librocrat on Oct 17, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Funny, so does Graham's new post.
http://sodomojo.com/2009/09/24/the-plusses-and-minuses-of-robot-umpires/
I work here: http://tinyurl.com/yfxlyhh
by Taylor H on Oct 17, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, this was below the belt and uncalled for. My apologies, Graham.
I work here: http://tinyurl.com/yfxlyhh
by Taylor H on Oct 17, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happened to you abandoning LL?
Welcome back, but this comment confuses me
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
by I'm NOT Corco on Oct 17, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LLLJ. Ask me over a more appropriate medium.
I work here: http://tinyurl.com/yfxlyhh
by Taylor H on Oct 17, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can vouch for the fact that he at the very least did not even know about Dave's post until after he wrote this.
My Mariners blog - SodoMojo Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!
by gregrabble on Oct 17, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's nothing wrong with Taylor's post, it's a good post
when it’s a reasonable conclusion, it’s not really a stretch that Taylor and Dave would come to that conclusion at the same time.
by seattlebruin on Oct 19, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get your first sentence. Is this a direct quote or common knowledge?
If I’m a successful business, I’m going to put more money into things that give me more return on my investment. I’m not going to spread my money equally amongst good and bad projects. I’m certainly not going to put all my eggs in one basket, but I don’t know about spreading money ‘equally’.
by PlaySportsinSeattle on Oct 22, 2009 10:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A better way to have phrased that would be:
“The single most important trait in business is the ability to create value, and to allocate resources in the way that best generates value in the moment while creating and protecting value into the future.”
by Taylor H on Oct 23, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
















