I'm actually ridiculously optimistic about the upcoming Diamondbacks season. Now, granted, I've been ridiculously optimistic the last two years, and not had a whole lot to show for it, but this season feels different somehow. Like any fan worth his salt, I've managed to convince myself of a whole list of reasons why this season will be so much better than the 92-loss abortion that preceded it. I will post that list at some point before the season, but that's a topic for another day. What I really want to focus on is what this season will mean for Josh Byrnes, the general manager of the Diamondbacks.
The other day, I was chatting with a friend of mine about the Diamondbacks. When the subject of the Diamondbacks' management came up, my friend, who is also from Phoenix and who is quite knowledgeable about baseball, exclaimed, "I fuckin' hate Josh Byrnes!" I was a bit taken aback by this reaction. I mean, I like Josh Byrnes, and I legitimately think he is incredibly intelligent and competent when it comes to running a baseball team. Furthermore, of all the moves he made since taking over the Diamondbacks in 2005, there is only one that I really found fault with at the time it was made.*
*That one move was the Max Scherzer trade made this offseason. Upon reading about this trade, I threw a readily-available book at the wall, and sulked for the rest of the day. A few days later, I began to come around on the trade, and I determined that the trade might not be catastrophic for the team. A few days after that, I decided that Josh Byrnes was a genius for getting two starting pitchers for the price of one. For more information, re-read the opening paragraph about lies that deluded fans tell themselves.
The team that Josh Byrnes inherited in 2005 was a nondescript mishmash of aging veterans and free agents from other teams, signed to mask the team's lack of depth at critical positions. This team had only three starting position players under the age of 28, and any prospects in the minors were at least a year away. The team was also poor, as their splurge of free agent signings inflated their payroll, and would cost them dearly for seasons to come. In short, they were bad, they were uninteresting to watch, and they had little potential to get better in the near future.
Despite these problems, however, Josh Byrnes had a plan, which he set about unfolding in 2006. He began to jettison the entrenched veterans in favor of younger, cheaper rookies like Stephen Drew and Carlos Quentin--rookies that Byrnes believed would provide the backbone of the Diamondbacks' lineup for years to come. He simultaneously signed and traded for cheap veterans (Eric Byrnes and Orlando Hudson), who would supplement the young core. All of his moves seemed, at least to my young eyes, highly methodical and sustainable. Based on everything I knew about sports, this seemed to be the "proper" way to rebuild a team. Byrnes' method was rewarded in 2007, when his young team won 90 games and made it to the NLCS.* The plan seemed to be working: the Diamondbacks were clearly a team on the rise.
*These 2007 Diamondbacks have a very legitimate argument for being the worst 90-win team in baseball history. Not only did they have a Pythagorean win-loss record of 79-83, by virtue of being outscored in the regular season, but their numbers were buoyed by a number of fluke individual performances. The highest WAR (wins above replacement) on the team belonged to Eric Byrnes, who turned in a four-win season from out of nowhere. Previously unknown Micah Owings provided a 110 ERA+. And so on...
Then, regression caught up. Many of Byrnes' patented young stars, who seemed so promising in the minors, stagnated in the majors and cast doubt on their ability. The once-strong farm system was gutted through trades for players (Dan Haren and Adam Dunn) who would put the team over the top. They finished out of the playoffs in 2008, and suffered through a nightmarish season of injuries and bad luck in 2009.
Along the way, Josh Byrnes' style changed along with his team's fortunes. Where he had once been meticulous about acquiring young talent and cheap veterans, his moves this offseason show a distinct desire to "win now." He traded Max Scherzer, under team control for 5 years, for Edwin Jackson, under team control for 2 years. His signings of Kelly Johnson and Adam LaRoche both fill holes, but they reduce playing time for talented young rookies Tony Abreu and Brandon Allen.
Byrnes clearly knows that he is on the hot seat. Even if he doesn't get fired after the season, another season like last year will likely result in a massive overhaul of the team that he constructed. The team has fewer holes than it did at this point last season, and should be better simply through regression to the mean. However, it is a bit disconcerting to see a general manager, who seemed to be doing everything right, rely on a 92-loss team to transform into a playoff contender in order to save his job.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Amare: To Trade or not to Trade?
Much has been made recently about the possibility of trading Phoenix Suns star Amare Stoudemire. Naturally, the local media has been all over the possibility of a blockbuster trade (for articles by actual credible sources click here and here). Among us casual fans, meanwhile, conversation has run the gamut from "he (Stoudemire) is a bum who doesn't try, get him outta here!" to "He's a cornerstone, he's the face of the franchise, he can cure cancer with his mind!" And since everyone else seems to have an opinion, I may as well give my $0.02.
Does anyone think that trading Amare is actually going to help the Suns, in the short-term or the long-term?
In the interest of full disclosure, I was very intrigued by the trade talk regarding Stoudemire last year. Like many fans last year, I fell victim to the excessive expectations associated with the team and, upon their failure to meet said expectations, wanted Kerr to blow it all up. Plus, the names were sexier last year (Stephen Curry in Purple and Orange? I could dig it.) because the team still had a year of control over Stoudemire. This year, all of the trade talk seems to smack of desperation, of wanting to get something for Amare, rather than letting him walk in the offseason for nothing. This is understandable, since Sarver seems to feel (as I do) that Stoudemire does not deserve the max contract that he covets, and is therefore reluctant to enter negotiations with him.
Going back to the question at the top, let's look at the first part, the short-term benefits of potentially trading Amare. If the only question is, "does trading Amare help the team reach the playoffs this season," then the short answer has to be, "no, no it does not." While the general fan consensus is that Amare does not consistently play up to his immense potential, he still has averaged at least twenty points every season since his rookie year (02-03).* Big men with scoring numbers like these do not grow on trees. Among active power forwards, only Chris Bosh, Dirk Novitzki and Tim Duncan have comparable scoring numbers. Contrast this level of production with the players the Suns could conceivably get in return. Of the players that the Suns could receive, the best individual player is probably the Sixers' Andre Iguodala, who is currently leading Philadelphia with 17.3 ppg. However, swingmen who can score are far more common than pure power forwards who can score. Right now, the Suns look like a no. 4 or 5 playoff seed in the West, who, with a few breaks, could make it into the second or third round of the playoffs. However, with the loss of Amare, the team is resigning itself to have, at best, a low seed and a "one and done" playoff appearance. Even if a complementary player were included in the deal, there would be a significant drop-off in scoring this season--a drop-off that could conceivably drop the Suns out of the playoff race entirely.
*This statistic discounts Amare's 05/06 season, where he averaged 8.7 ppg while playing all of three games.
However, that's obviously not really the point of the potential trade. No one is denying that the Suns are an aging group, and with Nash's contract expiring after next season, many fans believe that the time has come to tear it all up. Trading Amare for a couple of decent role players and a first-round pick in the 2010 draft (which the team does not currently possess) would certainly be an excellent way to begin this process. However, there is one problem with this line of reasoning: the Suns shouldn't be broken up because they are...well...actually still kinda good. I mentioned above that the team as currently constructed could make it to the second round of the playoffs, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that they could beat teams like Nuggets or Mavericks in a 7-game series. Trading Amare means sacrificing the rest of this season (and the revenue that would come from a playoff series) and probably next as well in exchange for a draft pick and some spare parts. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem to be worth the effort to me.
Holding onto Amare is a risk, but he is a talented enough player to make such a risk worthwhile. He may opt out, and this post may be made to look exceptionally stupid, but you never know for sure. Indeed, some of his recent comments indicate that he is at least considering staying in Phoenix for next year. We may have this same conversation again next year, but for now I simply want to savor the opportunity to watch an entertaining playoff contender led by one of the best power forwards in the NBA.
(All stats from basketball-reference.com)
Does anyone think that trading Amare is actually going to help the Suns, in the short-term or the long-term?
In the interest of full disclosure, I was very intrigued by the trade talk regarding Stoudemire last year. Like many fans last year, I fell victim to the excessive expectations associated with the team and, upon their failure to meet said expectations, wanted Kerr to blow it all up. Plus, the names were sexier last year (Stephen Curry in Purple and Orange? I could dig it.) because the team still had a year of control over Stoudemire. This year, all of the trade talk seems to smack of desperation, of wanting to get something for Amare, rather than letting him walk in the offseason for nothing. This is understandable, since Sarver seems to feel (as I do) that Stoudemire does not deserve the max contract that he covets, and is therefore reluctant to enter negotiations with him.
Going back to the question at the top, let's look at the first part, the short-term benefits of potentially trading Amare. If the only question is, "does trading Amare help the team reach the playoffs this season," then the short answer has to be, "no, no it does not." While the general fan consensus is that Amare does not consistently play up to his immense potential, he still has averaged at least twenty points every season since his rookie year (02-03).* Big men with scoring numbers like these do not grow on trees. Among active power forwards, only Chris Bosh, Dirk Novitzki and Tim Duncan have comparable scoring numbers. Contrast this level of production with the players the Suns could conceivably get in return. Of the players that the Suns could receive, the best individual player is probably the Sixers' Andre Iguodala, who is currently leading Philadelphia with 17.3 ppg. However, swingmen who can score are far more common than pure power forwards who can score. Right now, the Suns look like a no. 4 or 5 playoff seed in the West, who, with a few breaks, could make it into the second or third round of the playoffs. However, with the loss of Amare, the team is resigning itself to have, at best, a low seed and a "one and done" playoff appearance. Even if a complementary player were included in the deal, there would be a significant drop-off in scoring this season--a drop-off that could conceivably drop the Suns out of the playoff race entirely.
*This statistic discounts Amare's 05/06 season, where he averaged 8.7 ppg while playing all of three games.
However, that's obviously not really the point of the potential trade. No one is denying that the Suns are an aging group, and with Nash's contract expiring after next season, many fans believe that the time has come to tear it all up. Trading Amare for a couple of decent role players and a first-round pick in the 2010 draft (which the team does not currently possess) would certainly be an excellent way to begin this process. However, there is one problem with this line of reasoning: the Suns shouldn't be broken up because they are...well...actually still kinda good. I mentioned above that the team as currently constructed could make it to the second round of the playoffs, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that they could beat teams like Nuggets or Mavericks in a 7-game series. Trading Amare means sacrificing the rest of this season (and the revenue that would come from a playoff series) and probably next as well in exchange for a draft pick and some spare parts. Call me crazy, but that doesn't seem to be worth the effort to me.
Holding onto Amare is a risk, but he is a talented enough player to make such a risk worthwhile. He may opt out, and this post may be made to look exceptionally stupid, but you never know for sure. Indeed, some of his recent comments indicate that he is at least considering staying in Phoenix for next year. We may have this same conversation again next year, but for now I simply want to savor the opportunity to watch an entertaining playoff contender led by one of the best power forwards in the NBA.
(All stats from basketball-reference.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
