from MASNWell, an enigmatic, troublesome yet talented outfielder was released earlier this week, and the baseball world is in a tizzy. I've seen a variety of conclusions. Some think he was too talented to give up. Some didn't particularly mind. Some don't really like the move but understand why it was done. Regardless, all of these seem to ask the same question -- why didn't they just trade Elijah Dukes?
The world's a funny place. Most of us have some code, values by which we live, but we all (including me) never really follow them all the time. We screw up, and sometimes, we don't even notice that we've done it. Above, I've linked to several sabermetricians (to varying degrees, of course, but, in our overly dichotomous world, they fit more under that description than under "traditionalist"), and part of the sabermetrician's code is to avoid making assumptions when it comes to baseball. Yet, in each of these pieces, the author questions GM Mike Rizzo with assumptions. They all ask that question -- WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST TRADE DUKES?
The reasoning for the question is obvious. Rizzo released Dukes, eating his salary and receiving nothing in return. Now, a team will swing by for the league minimum and add him to their roster. Trading him, however, would have relieved the Nationals of Dukes' contract (though it's not a big one by any stretch) while receiving something in return. But let me ask you (the audience in general) how you know he didn't try to trade him.
I love reading all the above authors and many of the others that I read that discussed this topic (these just happened to be my favorites and well-written). They're all smart people, and they always think of things that I wouldn't have without them. This post isn't a criticism. It's more of an observation. But these articles/posts are a symptom of a greater problem that befall many -- love of criticizing GMs.
I'm not sure why this is. The cynical side of me believes that everyone is just bitter and envious because they want to be the GM, and their criticism is their demonstration of superiority. The optimistic part notes that they do it because they want the best for their team (or teams in general), and the criticism is for the greater good. The structural-functionalist part of me emphasizes that criticism is important for development and improved decision-making in the future. Again, I don't know why this is, but we all (again, I include myself) do it. But let's try to look at this with some perspective. Who wants to trade for Dukes?
Statisically, as I said, he is an enigma. 2007 saw a -.4 WAR season, but 2008 saw a break-out 2.8 WAR season. Then, 2009 plummeted right back to -.1 WAR. Offensively, he doesn't hit much for average but he gets on base at a decent clip (.349 for his career), and his ISO (power) is a pretty good .180 for his career. Unfortunately, that's buoyed by 2008 when he had a .386 OBP and .214 ISO. Defensively, he can't play center to save his life, but UZR is confused as to his play in the corners (it's worth mentioning that one should wait another full season for any pattern on his defense) as he was plus in 2008 but horrid in 2009. If you're another team, do you know what player he'll be in 2010? 2011? Beyond? He's extremely talented but probably not.
Off the field, Dukes' life isn't any simpler. There are allegations of abuse, drug possession, and fathering illegitimate children. His past was the reason the Rays traded him to Washington, and it was the reason that Washington hired a "Special Assistant". But we need to be fair. Since 2007, Dukes seems to have walked the line. Sometimes we forget that people aren't fully developed as 23-24 year olds, and I imagine it's worse when you've been told how great you are your entire life. People deserve second chances as long as they work to change, and it seems that Dukes has. But if you're another team, do you want to bank on that?
Even if you're willing to see past the inconsistency and personal history, you have to ask yourself what to trade for this outfielder. Are you going to give up a five-star prospect? Heck no. What about a four-star? Well, he's talented, but I imagine the answer is still a solid no. What about a three-star with limited upside? Maybe, but if you're the Nationals, are you really interested in that? Is it worth the trouble? How do you pick between all the middling prospects? And all of this assumes that the other team would even trade a three-star guy for Dukes. Chances are that most teams see what you and I see -- a troubled and inconsistent player. Why trade anything of value for him when you know that the Nationals might release him? If they do trade him, there's a significant chance he won't hurt you anyway.
But couldn't they have held onto him and played him this summer, hoping he rebuilds his trade value? Here's a fair point. If he fails, you're the Nationals, and it doesn't matter. If he succeeds, you can keep him or trade him, but again, you're left in a weird position. Do you trade him when he's seemingly rebuilt his value or keep him because he's seemingly rebuilt his value? And if he has, is his past (both on and off the field) still enough to keep teams from offering much? Yeah, you might get something this time, but Carlos Silva isn't a prize.
My point in all of this isn't to criticize anyone and not to analyze the actual move. Personally, I understand why Rizzo did what he did, but I still kind of hope the Braves pick him up (I'm complicated). The point is perspective. We're awfully quick to judge a GM, and a lot of times, we do it without all the information. Did anyone have any inside information on possible trade talks? Did anyone ask other GMs if they would have traded for Dukes? GMs have to make a lot of difficult decisions, and because of competitive advantage and confidentiality (personal or business), they can't just let us in on all of their thoughts. It's frustrating, but it's the way it has to be. Remember, the teams and GMs know a lot more about a player than the media and the fans. They know his performance, personality, and injury issues (I didn't even mention his injury issues -- did you know that Dukes has never played more than 107 games in a MLB season?) very intimately, and they spend all day thinking about this when you might spend a few minutes or an hour thinking about it.
So can one judge a move by a GM? Sure. You can still say he shouldn't have released him. You can say he definitely should have. As long as you evidence, you can make your case. The problem is when you make those judgments without evidence. Writers asked why Rizzo didn't trade Dukes, but they didn't know if he had. And if they did, they made no mention of it.
We all do it, but the idea is to learn from the times we do so that we eventually won't.
The world's a funny place. Most of us have some code, values by which we live, but we all (including me) never really follow them all the time. We screw up, and sometimes, we don't even notice that we've done it. Above, I've linked to several sabermetricians (to varying degrees, of course, but, in our overly dichotomous world, they fit more under that description than under "traditionalist"), and part of the sabermetrician's code is to avoid making assumptions when it comes to baseball. Yet, in each of these pieces, the author questions GM Mike Rizzo with assumptions. They all ask that question -- WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST TRADE DUKES?
The reasoning for the question is obvious. Rizzo released Dukes, eating his salary and receiving nothing in return. Now, a team will swing by for the league minimum and add him to their roster. Trading him, however, would have relieved the Nationals of Dukes' contract (though it's not a big one by any stretch) while receiving something in return. But let me ask you (the audience in general) how you know he didn't try to trade him.
I love reading all the above authors and many of the others that I read that discussed this topic (these just happened to be my favorites and well-written). They're all smart people, and they always think of things that I wouldn't have without them. This post isn't a criticism. It's more of an observation. But these articles/posts are a symptom of a greater problem that befall many -- love of criticizing GMs.
I'm not sure why this is. The cynical side of me believes that everyone is just bitter and envious because they want to be the GM, and their criticism is their demonstration of superiority. The optimistic part notes that they do it because they want the best for their team (or teams in general), and the criticism is for the greater good. The structural-functionalist part of me emphasizes that criticism is important for development and improved decision-making in the future. Again, I don't know why this is, but we all (again, I include myself) do it. But let's try to look at this with some perspective. Who wants to trade for Dukes?
Statisically, as I said, he is an enigma. 2007 saw a -.4 WAR season, but 2008 saw a break-out 2.8 WAR season. Then, 2009 plummeted right back to -.1 WAR. Offensively, he doesn't hit much for average but he gets on base at a decent clip (.349 for his career), and his ISO (power) is a pretty good .180 for his career. Unfortunately, that's buoyed by 2008 when he had a .386 OBP and .214 ISO. Defensively, he can't play center to save his life, but UZR is confused as to his play in the corners (it's worth mentioning that one should wait another full season for any pattern on his defense) as he was plus in 2008 but horrid in 2009. If you're another team, do you know what player he'll be in 2010? 2011? Beyond? He's extremely talented but probably not.
Off the field, Dukes' life isn't any simpler. There are allegations of abuse, drug possession, and fathering illegitimate children. His past was the reason the Rays traded him to Washington, and it was the reason that Washington hired a "Special Assistant". But we need to be fair. Since 2007, Dukes seems to have walked the line. Sometimes we forget that people aren't fully developed as 23-24 year olds, and I imagine it's worse when you've been told how great you are your entire life. People deserve second chances as long as they work to change, and it seems that Dukes has. But if you're another team, do you want to bank on that?
Even if you're willing to see past the inconsistency and personal history, you have to ask yourself what to trade for this outfielder. Are you going to give up a five-star prospect? Heck no. What about a four-star? Well, he's talented, but I imagine the answer is still a solid no. What about a three-star with limited upside? Maybe, but if you're the Nationals, are you really interested in that? Is it worth the trouble? How do you pick between all the middling prospects? And all of this assumes that the other team would even trade a three-star guy for Dukes. Chances are that most teams see what you and I see -- a troubled and inconsistent player. Why trade anything of value for him when you know that the Nationals might release him? If they do trade him, there's a significant chance he won't hurt you anyway.
But couldn't they have held onto him and played him this summer, hoping he rebuilds his trade value? Here's a fair point. If he fails, you're the Nationals, and it doesn't matter. If he succeeds, you can keep him or trade him, but again, you're left in a weird position. Do you trade him when he's seemingly rebuilt his value or keep him because he's seemingly rebuilt his value? And if he has, is his past (both on and off the field) still enough to keep teams from offering much? Yeah, you might get something this time, but Carlos Silva isn't a prize.
My point in all of this isn't to criticize anyone and not to analyze the actual move. Personally, I understand why Rizzo did what he did, but I still kind of hope the Braves pick him up (I'm complicated). The point is perspective. We're awfully quick to judge a GM, and a lot of times, we do it without all the information. Did anyone have any inside information on possible trade talks? Did anyone ask other GMs if they would have traded for Dukes? GMs have to make a lot of difficult decisions, and because of competitive advantage and confidentiality (personal or business), they can't just let us in on all of their thoughts. It's frustrating, but it's the way it has to be. Remember, the teams and GMs know a lot more about a player than the media and the fans. They know his performance, personality, and injury issues (I didn't even mention his injury issues -- did you know that Dukes has never played more than 107 games in a MLB season?) very intimately, and they spend all day thinking about this when you might spend a few minutes or an hour thinking about it.
So can one judge a move by a GM? Sure. You can still say he shouldn't have released him. You can say he definitely should have. As long as you evidence, you can make your case. The problem is when you make those judgments without evidence. Writers asked why Rizzo didn't trade Dukes, but they didn't know if he had. And if they did, they made no mention of it.
We all do it, but the idea is to learn from the times we do so that we eventually won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment