LaRoche hasn't heard from Braves

Leave a comment

adam laroche.jpgAdam LaRoche batted .325/.401/.557
with 12 home runs, 40 RBI and a .957 OPS in 212 at-bats after being
scooped up from the Red Sox on July 31, playing a huge part in the
Braves’ late playoff run. Sure, we’re all accustomed to LaRoche’s
second-half surges — .909 OPS lifetime, as opposed to .773 before the
All-Star break — but his strong performance down the stretch hasn’t
given general manager Frank Wren
much of a sense of urgency to bring him back:



“No talk from ATL that I know of. Guess I should have hit .400 while I was there.”



Tough words by LaRoche. So, what’s
the deal? Well, for starters, LaRoche reportedly wants a three-year
contract worth more than $7.05 million annually. Also, the Braves have
2007 second-round pick Freddie Freeman shooting up their minor league
system. Freeman, 20, has a .294/.356/.452 line over his first two
professional seasons and was recently ranked as the team’s No. 2
prospect
by Baseball America. The sides may find a one-year compromise later, but there’s no reason to commit to an expensive mutli-year deal with a younger and far cheaper player on the rise.

Red Sox owner: “spending money helps”

Getty Images
5 Comments

The other day Rob Manfred said, as he and other owners have said often in the past, that there is no correlation between payroll and winning. He said that defensively, in response to criticism of the slow free agent market of the past two offseasons.

As we have noted in the past, Manfred is not being honest about that. While, yes, in any given year there can be wild variation between payroll and win total — the Giants stunk last year, the A’s won 97 games — common sense dictates otherwise. What’s more, a recent study has shown that there is a pretty strong correlation between winning and payroll over time. Yes, you can fluke into a big season with a low payroll — Deadspin compared it to a cold snap occurring during a time of climate change — but if you want that “sustained success” teams claim they want, the best way to ensure it is to spend more money over time.

If you know anything about baseball labor history, though, you know well that the Commissioner and the owners will continue to mischaracterize the dynamics of the business as it suits them. Mostly because — present lefty sportswriters notwithstanding — very few people push back on their narratives. Fans tend to parrot ownership’s line on this stuff and, more often than not, baseball media acts as stenographer for ownership as opposed to critic. That gives owners a far greater ability to shape the narrative about all of this than most institutions.

Which makes this all the more awkward. From David Schoenfield of ESPN:

In apparent contradiction to his own commissioner, Boston Red Sox owner John Henry said Monday that, while there is not a perfect correlation between a bigger payroll and winning, “spending more money helps.”

Which is right. The correlation is not perfect — teams can spend a lot of money on a bad team if given the chance and a low payroll team like the Rays can bullpen their way to 90 wins — but you’re way more likely to win year-in, year-out if you’re spending than if you go cheap all the time and hope for a miracle season.

Which is not to say that Henry is some labor activist owner. He and his fellow front office officials have a long history of backing the league office on just about everything that matters and will no doubt do so with labor matters in the runup to the next CBA negotiation. The owners tend not to have a solidarity problem.

But Henry does seem to draw the line at peddling baloney, which is a shockingly necessary thing when the league and the union’s relationship turns acrimonious.