• What’s The Reasonable Amount Of Time To Stink?

    Posted by on December 20th, 2012 · Comments (75)

    Some major league baseball teams have periods, in their history, where they stink for a very long time. But, what’s acceptable here? How long is it OK for a team to stink?

    Personally, I think the longest that a team should stink is six years. After a couple of years of stinking, you should be able to put a plan in place that you get you back to being a very good team within four years time (if not sooner).

    And, if you’re team stinks for more than 6 years in a row, then you’re really doing something wrong.

    What’s your opinion on this?

    Comments on What’s The Reasonable Amount Of Time To Stink?

    1. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 7:36 pm

      @ Raf:
      Here you go, Raf:Evan3457 wrote:

      In fact, if this were a MasterCard commercial, those wins between 88 and 95, every season, would be damn near…priceless.

    2. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 7:54 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      How is Baltimore’s ownership and/or front office in the “post-Ripken” era evaluated with and without looking at its payroll, for example? What else do you look at?

      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.

    3. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:02 pm
    4. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:03 pm
    5. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:20 pm

      Raf wrote:

      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.

      You didn’t answer the question. The team’s offense, defense, and pitching represented a team that lost at least 84 games from 2003-08, or 6 years, if I recall correctly. In others word it “stunk” for the purposes of this discussion and in terms of its record of wins and losses. How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?
      Steve L. wrote:

      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?

      The Balitmore Orioles sucked for approx. six years. Is it safe/fair to say that it was the fault of the ownership and/or front office without looking at the team’s payroll? If so, how?

    6. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 8:34 pm

      Raf wrote:

      @ McMillan:
      Here you go;
      http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/diamond-dollars-the-economics-of-winning-in-baseball-part-1/

      Thanks for the article. Is this related to a previous post on this discussion in some direct way?

    7. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 9:18 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      You didn’t answer the question.

      Yes I did.

      The team’s offense, defense, and pitching represented a team that lost at least 84 games from 2003-08, or 6 years, if I recall correctly. In others word it “stunk” for the purposes of this discussion and in terms of its record of wins and losses.

      Yeah, and? You look at the roster to see why the team stunk. If the pitching, defense and offense stunk, then you look to address those areas.

      How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?

      By looking at the roster. There were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success.

      McMillan wrote:

      Thanks for the article. Is this related to a previous post on this discussion in some direct way?

      Yes.

    8. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 9:35 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      McMillan wrote:

      You can not expect an answer to this question or any relating to payroll from most people on record as supporting Brian “The Stalking Horse” Cashman, especially when the team does not have a proven veteran catcher or right-handed power hitting outfielder at this stage of The Stalking Horse’s “winter program.”

      Raf wrote:

      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.

      Ricketson wrote:

      You didn’t answer the question.

      Raf wrote:

      Yes I did.

      LOL. I told you that you wouldn’t get an answer…

    9. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 10:32 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      LOL. I told you that you wouldn’t get an answer…

      To the contrary: I got an an answer…

    10. Ricketson
      December 22nd, 2012 | 10:33 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      The Balitmore Orioles sucked for approx. six years. Is it safe/fair to say that it was the fault of the ownership and/or front office without looking at the team’s payroll? If so, how?

      Raf wrote:

      By looking at the roster. There were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success.

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

    11. McMillan
      December 22nd, 2012 | 10:39 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

      Well done.

    12. Raf
      December 22nd, 2012 | 11:28 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

      The point is to dismiss the payroll as your focus. You look at the roster and the production of the players on the roster and you make changes. What the O’s have spent or are spending isn’t particularly relevant.

      You and McMillan keep trying to tie a team’s successes and failures to payroll, and are doing a spectacular job at failing at it. 😛

      The Pirates suck, and have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent, not because they are or aren’t spending money. But nice try at the “gotcha” tho 😉

    13. Evan3457
      December 23rd, 2012 | 12:49 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      That’s right, cite the one year in the last 18 that they didn’t make the playoffs as evidence they’re no smarter…
      I believe more evidence was cited.

      No, actually, 2008 was the only year cited by you.

      Evan3457 wrote:
      Lookit, the point is, the Yanks spend a lot of money because they have the resources to, and it seems to be a winning strategy, at least up until now.
      “[A]t least up until now!” LOL!

      What’s to laugh at? I can’t predict the future. Neither can you, by the way.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      Oh, and dollars per win, it seems to me, is quite a silly way to go about it, because the wins between, say, 88 and 95, are a heckuva lot more valuable than the wins between, say, 68 and 75.
      I was not completely serious, although the fact is not completely silly either…
      Evan3457 wrote:
      In fact, if this were a MasterCard commercial, those wins between 88 and 95, every season, would be damn near…priceless.
      “[A]t least up until now” is damn near priceless…

      I still don’t see what’s to laugh at…yet.

    14. Evan3457
      December 23rd, 2012 | 12:51 am

      Ricketson wrote:

      Raf wrote:
      It’s evaluated the same way it was evaluated during the Rikpen era and pre Ripken era; you look at the roster, evaluating the team’s offense, defense, and pitching.
      You didn’t answer the question. The team’s offense, defense, and pitching represented a team that lost at least 84 games from 2003-08, or 6 years, if I recall correctly. In others word it “stunk” for the purposes of this discussion and in terms of its record of wins and losses. How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?
      Steve L. wrote:
      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?
      The Balitmore Orioles sucked for approx. six years. Is it safe/fair to say that it was the fault of the ownership and/or front office without looking at the team’s payroll? If so, how?

      Well, then if all it takes is spending a ton of money, why didn’t the O’s spend a ton of money?

    15. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 5:22 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Didn’t you just look at the team’s payroll (“there were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success”)?

      What happened to the coup de grâce?

    16. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 5:30 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      How can the following question be answered for the Baltimore Orioles from 2003-08, without looking at the team’s payroll for that window of time?

      Steve L. wrote:

      Is it safe/fair to say, that, if a team that sucks still sucks more than six years later, then it’s the fault of ownership and/or the front office?

      Raf wrote:

      By looking at the roster. There were teams over the years that have spent more and less than the O’s that have had varying levels of success.

      Correct. The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example. Thank you.
      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll; a general manager can not “suck” and a team can not make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has not spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period. And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.

    17. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 5:42 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      Correct. The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example. Thank you.
      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll; a general manager can not “suck” and a team can not make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has not spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period. And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.

      Bravo.
      Raf wrote:

      The Pirates… have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent…

      “I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.” – Brian Cashman.

    18. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:22 pm

      @ McMillan:
      McMillan wrote:

      “I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.” – Brian Cashman.

      Raf wrote:

      The Pirates suck, and have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent.

      Ricketson wrote:

      And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.

    19. Evan3457
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:40 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      Ricketson wrote:
      Correct. The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example. Thank you.
      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll; a general manager can not “suck” and a team can not make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has not spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period. And a general manager can “suck” and a team can make a playoff appearance in almost every year because the team has spent more in relation to other teams for the same time period.
      Bravo.
      Raf wrote:
      The Pirates… have sucked because they’ve done a poor job of evaluating talent…
      “I’m an administrator. I’m a good listener. I would not pass myself off as an evaluator of talent.” – Brian Cashman.

      Whether Cashman is an evaluator of talent has nothing to do with the fact that the Pirates have had a succession of front officie personnel who were very bad at it.

      Until recently, the Pirates’ top draft picks have been horrible. That’s just one example.

    20. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:50 pm

      @ Ricketson:
      It all fits together nicely, doesn’t it?

    21. Raf
      December 23rd, 2012 | 6:51 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      The question can not be answered without looking at the team’s payroll, or what the team spent in relation to other teams for the same time period, such as six years for example.

      Of course it can be answered, I answered the question already. You look at the roster, and try to address any deficiencies that may be on it.

      Therefore, it can not be said that it is the fault of a general manager that a team does not make a playoff appearance for a time period such as six years without looking at a team’s payroll;

      Yes, it can. As evidenced by all the other teams that have made the playoffs, or have finished with a better record than the O’s, or that the O’s are on their 3rd general manager in those 6 years, or 7th since their last playoff appearance (and winning season) in 1997.

    22. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:03 pm

      @ McMillan:
      Ricketson wrote:

      @ McMillan:
      I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more…

    23. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:09 pm

      Ricketson wrote:

      I’ve never seen anyone argue against himself more…

      What about Brian Cashman?

    24. Ricketson
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:43 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      What about Brian Cashman?

      That’s a different story…

    25. McMillan
      December 23rd, 2012 | 7:52 pm

      @ Raf:
      “Gotcha.”

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.