First-round bust Daniel Moskos arrives in majors

2 Comments

Replacing the injured Evan Meek on Pittsburgh’s roster will be 2007 first-round pick Daniel Moskos, the Pirates announced Saturday.

It will be the first trip to the majors for Moskos, who was drafted fourth overall behind David Price (Rays), Mike Moustakas (Royals) and Josh Vitters (Cubs) four years ago.  The Pirates weren’t interested in spending the money to secure Matt Wieters, who went fifth to the Orioles, and ended up choosing Moskos over talents like Jason Heyward, Madison Bumgarner and Jarrod Parker.

Moskos gets the call after opening the season with a 1.69 ERA and a 7/1 K/BB ratio in 10 2/3 innings out of the pen for Triple-A Indianapolis.  The Pirates made him a full-time reliever last year, and he ended 2010 with a 4.14 ERA and 22 saves between Double- and Triple-A.

So, perhaps it’s not fair to call him a bust just yet.  He does have a chance of developing into a steady left-handed reliever.  But when the best-case scenario for the fourth overall pick is John Grabow’s career, it’s safe to say something went wrong.

Red Sox owner: “spending money helps”

Getty Images
4 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.