Josh Byrnes' track record warranted dismissal from Diamondbacks

5 Comments

According to AOL Fanhouse’s Ed Price, it was his refusal to fire manager A.J. Hinch that cost Josh Byrnes his job as Arizona’s general manager on Thursday. In truth, he deserved to lose it regardless and it probably would have happened earlier if the Diamondbacks hadn’t had him under contract through 2015.
Yes, 2015. Byrnes, who was pretty successful initially after taking over the Diamondbacks in 2005, even had a small stake in ownership under the terms of an eight-year deal he was given in 2008.
How poor of a job Byrnes had done since a strong first two years can’t truly be judged without some inside knowledge. It largely hinges on whether Byrnes was the driving force behind the three-year, $30 million extension to Eric Byrnes in 2007 or if he was forced to stand aside as ownership spent to lock perhaps the franchise’s most popular player. The common belief is that the latter version is the truth.
The move was obviously bad at the time, though it took some dreadful luck for it to work out as poorly as it did. Eric Byrnes went from being an above average corner outfielder to an injury-prone liability in record time. And his return resulted in Carlos Quentin being traded away for first base prospect Chris Carter over the following winter.
Those weren’t the only poor moves, though. A couple of dirt-cheap potential regulars, Scott Hairston and Alberto Callaspo, were given away for middle-relief fodder in 2007.
Prior to the 2008 season, Byrnes surrendered Carter, Brett Anderson, Carlos Gonzalez, Aaron Cunningham and more to Oakland for Dan Haren. If Haren was the final piece, it might have been justified. However, the Diamondbacks finished the season just 82-80 and their farm system, which had been one of the strongest in the game during the middle of the decade, was suddenly barren.
Byrnes’ big moves going into the 2009 season were to sign Jon Garland and Felipe Lopez. After a poor start, he made the very surprising call to replace manager Bob Melvin with Hinch. Hinch, who had been working in the front office, never appeared to prove himself in the clubhouse and the team went just 58-75 under him.
The Diamondbacks were 31-48 to open this year. Byrnes actually appeared to have his best offseason in years, having snatched up Kelly Johnson and Adam LaRoche at very modest prices. The jury is definitely still out on whether it was worth giving up Max Scherzer and Daniel Schlereth for Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy, but the move hadn’t really had any negative ramifications so far.
One does have to admire Byrnes’ guts. His contract and apparent job security probably had something to do with it, but Byrnes took more risks than any GM in the league during his tenure. Hinch was the big one that backfired. Not only the did the Haren trade involve a huge amount of talent, but Byrnes traded his sure-thing closer, Jose Valverde, on the same day just to create the budget room to pull it off. The Scherzer-Schlereth deal was largely panned, but Byrnes essentially made the bet that Scherzer would never manage to stay healthy and fulfill his potential.
I don’t doubt that Byrnes will have a job again quickly. He’s probably an ideal No. 2 man in a major league front office, and there’s a better than even chance that he’ll return to the GM role someday. Still, the Diamondbacks were right to move on. Byrnes’ teams had underachieved, and he hadn’t put the franchise in a great position going forward. It was time to wipe the slate clean.

Must-Click Link: Big Brother is Watching Ballplayers

Big Brother
2 Comments

Over at Vice Rian Watt has a great story about how technology is changing baseball. No, it’s not about sabermetrics or statistical analysis. At least not as you all know and understand those things. It’s about how the players themselves are now becoming the data. About how wearables — little devices which monitor everything about an athlete’s behavior — and analysis of that behavior is changing clubs’ understanding of what makes baseball players excel.

Which is fine if you approach it solely from a technological standpoint and do that usual “gee, what a world we live in” stuff that such articles typically inspire. Watt, however, talks about the larger implications of turning players into data: the blurring of their professional and personal lives:

Welcome to the next frontier in baseball’s analytic revolution. Many of this revolution’s tenets will be familiar to anyone who works for a living—the ever-growing digitization and quantification of things never-before measured and tracked, for instance, or the ever-expanding workplace, the blurring distinction between the professional and the personal, and the cult of self-improvement for self-improvement’s sake. These broader trends are colliding with baseball tradition on backfields and in training facilities around the major leagues, and those collisions have raised questions about privacy, security, and what employees owe their employers.

Players already accept drug testing and rules about personal behavior. But can a club, armed with knowledge about how it affects a player’s performance, make rules about how he sleeps? What kind of shoes he wears off the field? Everything he eats?

I’m the last person to fall for slippery slope fallacies. In most instances there are lines that can be drawn when it comes to regulating the behavior of others and making new rules. But in order to draw those lines you have to ask questions about what is and what is not acceptable. You also have to acknowledge that it’s really easy for technology to get ahead of our ability to comprehend its ethical implications.

Vin Scully recites the “People will come” speech from “Field of Dreams”

James
9 Comments

You all probably know my thing about “Field of Dreams.” Specifically, that I hate it. Maybe my least favorite baseball movie ever. And I have sat through “The Slugger’s Wife” at least twice. That’s really saying something. At some point I’ll watch it again and liveblog the experience to explain my position on this — I know all of you think I’m nuts for not liking it — but just accept that I don’t like it for now, OK?

But just because a movie stinks doesn’t mean every aspect of it is bad. I loved Burt Lancaster in everything he did and he did an excellent job in “Field of Dreams.” Same with James Earl Jones for the most part. I thought he did a great job playing a character which, at times, didn’t have as much to work with as he could’ve had. No, there are good elements of “Field of Dreams.” If there weren’t — if it were just a total turkey — it wouldn’t inspire the feelings I have about it. If it were an unmitigated disaster, I’d occasionally re-watch it on a so-bad-it’s-good theory.

The “People will come” speech is good. Not necessarily for its content — there’s some hokeyness to it — but because James Earl Jones does a great job delivering it. He could read the dang phone book and make it compelling

Yesterday Major League Baseball launched a partnership thingie with the Field of Dreams site in Iowa. Part of that effort involved having Vin Scully recite the “People will come” speech over some baseball footage. Watch and listen:

Personally, I’d prefer Vin to tell some kooky story about an opposing player actually being a part time flautist or what have you. He’s had many monumental moments, but Scully is Scully for the way he makes the workaday and the mundane sound poetic, not because he takes the already poetic and elevates it further.

Still, this is good. Even to a hater like me. And I’m sure a lot of you will love it.

The Yankees release former prospect Slade Heathcott

TAMPA, FL - FEBRUARY 27:  Slade Heathcott #71 of the New York Yankees poses for a portrait on February 27, 2016 at George M Steinbrenner Stadium  in Tampa, Florida.  (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images)
1 Comment

The Yankees announced last night that they have given an unconditional release to outfielder Slade Heathcott. They needed room on the 40-man roster and he was seen as expendable. There is no indication that they’re going to try to re-sign him or anything. He’s just gone.

Heathcott was the 29th overall pick in the 2009 draft and at one time was considered the second best prospect in the Yankees’ system. Injuries and decreased production as he climbed the minor league ladder took the shine off this particular apple, however. He had a nice little cup of coffee with New York last season, but he’s hitting a mere .230/.271/.310 at Triple-A this year in his second go-around.

Heathcott can play center field and has good tools, but he’s going to have to use them working for another organization.

Pete Rose says no one ever told him not to gamble on baseball anymore

Former Cincinnati Reds player and manager Pete Rose poses while taping a segment for Miami Television News on the campus of Miami University, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015, in Oxford, Ohio. (AP Photo/Gary Landers)
Associated Press
23 Comments

Pete Rose will soon be inducted into the Reds Hall of Fame and have his number retired and all of that jazz. To mark the occasion, Cincinnati Magazine interviewed the Hit King. And, for, like, the 4.256th straight time, Rose shows that he’s in complete denial about why he was banned in 1989 and why he was not reinstated last year when Rob Manfred agreed to review his case:

In this time of limbo after the ban, did you worry about your legacy? I normally don’t ever worry about anything that I’m not in control of. I wasn’t in control of anything in that situation. I went through a period when I got suspended where I didn’t even go to the ballpark. It’s not because I didn’t want to. There were so many restrictions on me, I just didn’t want to put people through that. It didn’t feel good to me.

Sure he wasn’t in control of anything. He was a tiny boat, cast out onto the waves, left to drift in a sea of uncertainty and powerlessness.

But it gets better. Rose was asked about how he changed his life after his ban:

But you still bet on baseball, albeit legally. It seems like the commissioner’s office has taken issue with that fact. Have you considered not betting on baseball anymore? That’s a good point. You remember reading about Bart Giamatti telling me to reconfigure my life? OK, no one has ever told me—including Manfred, including Selig—what does that mean? I guess my point is, just tell me what you want me to do and I’ll do it. I’m in control. Just tell me. If I want to bet on Monday Night Football, and that’s the way I enjoy my life, why is everybody so worried about that? I’m 75 years old, I have to be able to have some form of entertainment. I’m not betting out of my means. It’s not illegal. If you don’t want me to bet on baseball or anything else, just tell me.

If they told you that— I’d do it. Absolutely. But no one has ever explained “reconfigure your life.” I have taken responsibility for it. I have apologized for it. I have shown I’m sorry. But there again, no matter how many times you say you’re sorry, not everybody’s going to hear you. All I can do is imagine what they meant when they said reconfigure my life. And evidently, no one’s willing to tell me what that means.

So it was all a big misunderstanding. A man who was in his late 40s was banned for gambling on baseball and was told to straighten up yet he had no idea, for 26 years, that maybe it’d be a good idea for him to not gamble on baseball anymore in order to get back into the good graces of the folks who banned him. Damn, why did they pose such impossible riddles to him! If only he had a clue as to what sort of behavior would have improved his chances!

But really, guys: Rose is ready to stop betting on baseball. All you have to do is tell him. If he had known before now, well, we’d be having a TOTALLY different conversation, I’m sure.