Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Indians Keeping Antonetti

Posted: 9/28/2012 2:37 PM

Indians Keeping Antonetti 


Team president Mark Shapiro said on Thursday that the organization has confidence in Antonetti's strategy for the building of a contending team.

"We obviously look at a broad range of criteria when we're evaluating everybody," Shapiro said. "Chris is dealing with a set of challenges, which I understand, some of which are the creation of the organization that he and I ran together, and some of which are the result of other decisions.

"But I feel he's controlled the bulk of what he can control well. [Indians CEO Paul Dolan] and I still endorse strongly [Antonetti's] vision for how we can be competitive and, ultimately, a championship team.

"We feel that he's uniquely qualified and more capable than any other person in leading us to that outcome."
http://cleveland.indians.mlb.c...rticle_39130812


Last edited 9/28/2012 2:37 PM by ronfh

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/28/2012 2:40 PM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


I wish Shapiro would give us the details on what the challenges are which were the creation of the org and the others which were the result of other decisions.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/28/2012 2:41 PM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


Wonderful; we have the indifferent endorsing the incompetent.

Last edited 9/28/2012 2:43 PM by DCTribefan

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/28/2012 3:05 PM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



ronfh wrote: I wish Shapiro would give us the details on what the challenges are which were the creation of the org and the others which were the result of other decisions.
I wish reporters would do their job.  If you will, quotes like these (the use of speech) are big fat pitches right down the heart of the plate.  Swing the freaking bat! 

Either ask the proper questions or go by the proper title, stenographer.  Pick one.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/28/2012 3:07 PM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



ronfh wrote:

"But I feel he's controlled the bulk of what he can control well."

barf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gifbarf.gif

Last edited 9/28/2012 3:07 PM by mooseahoy

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/28/2012 3:25 PM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



ronfh wrote: Team president Mark Shapiro said on Thursday that the organization has confidence in Antonetti's strategy for the building of a contending team.

"We obviously look at a broad range of criteria when we're evaluating everybody," Shapiro said. "Chris is dealing with a set of challenges, which I understand, some of which are the creation of the organization that he and I ran together, and some of which are the result of other decisions.

"But I feel he's controlled the bulk of what he can control well. [Indians CEO Paul Dolan] and I still endorse strongly [Antonetti's] vision for how we can be competitive and, ultimately, a championship team.

"We feel that he's uniquely qualified and more capable than any other person in leading us to that outcome."
http://cleveland.indians.mlb.c...rticle_39130812


At this point it appears that if there was an interview Bastian was doing a one on one because every site that offers the Shapiro quotes about Antonetti coming back sources Bastian.

It is also possible that there was not even an interview but Shapiro and Dolan's comments were from a media handout.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/28/2012 3:33 PM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


"Manny's not the only one to blame," Antonetti said.
...
That status quo just not good enough anymore.

What’s the definition of insanity? Ah yes, it’s doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results

Well, here we go again.
...
With that said, Manny Acta needed to be fired, because this team needs to go in a different direction.

But if the Indians aren’t firing the general manager and president that constructed both the personnel and the philosophy of this team since 2001, what are they really doing?

Is Chris Antonetti suddenly going to figure things out?

Is Mark Shapiro going to force Antonetti to do something that doesn’t fit into the context of their “stable environment?”

Are the Indians going to start taking the risks that are needed to take the next steps into contention?

No freakin' way.

The Dolans are still going to be the frugal, mind-numbing owners that have the PR sense of BP after their gulf oil disaster a couple years back.

Mark Shapiro is still going to talk about having the money to make moves, then follow with a cautionary tale about something with regards to making those moves...then never make them.

Chris Antonetti is going to continue to sign hundreds of former major leaguers that are about 31, who have about 40 games of major league experience, used to be #4 prospects for their teams about seven years ago, and can't hit major league pitching.
http://www.indiansprospectinsi...-to-blame-32547
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/28/2012 4:02 PM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



ronfh wrote: "Manny's not the only one to blame," Antonetti said.
...
That status quo just not good enough anymore.

What’s the definition of insanity? Ah yes, it’s doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results

Well, here we go again.
...
With that said, Manny Acta needed to be fired, because this team needs to go in a different direction.

But if the Indians aren’t firing the general manager and president that constructed both the personnel and the philosophy of this team since 2001, what are they really doing?

Is Chris Antonetti suddenly going to figure things out?

Is Mark Shapiro going to force Antonetti to do something that doesn’t fit into the context of their “stable environment?”

Are the Indians going to start taking the risks that are needed to take the next steps into contention?

No freakin' way.

The Dolans are still going to be the frugal, mind-numbing owners that have the PR sense of BP after their gulf oil disaster a couple years back.

Mark Shapiro is still going to talk about having the money to make moves, then follow with a cautionary tale about something with regards to making those moves...then never make them.

Chris Antonetti is going to continue to sign hundreds of former major leaguers that are about 31, who have about 40 games of major league experience, used to be #4 prospects for their teams about seven years ago, and can't hit major league pitching.
http://www.indiansprospectinsi...-to-blame-32547
As if there isn't enough ranting on this board by members you now feel a need to import rants.

Perhaps I'm being unfair.  Did I miss him saying something that others haven't said?  Did he offer any facts we weren't already aware of? Is he in any better position than you or anyone else on the board to observe what was going on? Did I, perhaps, in looking at his credentials overlook something that entitles his "opinion" to be given more weight than yours or other posters?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/28/2012 5:53 PM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 




---------------------------------------------
But if the Indians aren’t firing the general manager and president that constructed both the personnel and the philosophy of this team since 2001, what are they really doing?
---------------------------------------------



But if the Indians aren’t firing the general manager and president that constructed both the personnel and the philosophy that got this team to within a game of the World Series, what are they really doing?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/28/2012 6:01 PM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


Keeping Antonetti but firing Acta is kind of like buying new tires on a car that is in need of a front end alignment. Tires aren't going to do much good without that alignment.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/28/2012 9:43 PM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


Perfect

TitoFrancona wrote: Keeping Antonetti but firing Acta is kind of like buying new tires on a car that is in need of a front end alignment. Tires aren't going to do much good without that alignment.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/29/2012 6:44 AM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


Regarding the "controllable" issues, I think Shapiro believes that the decisions Antonetti has made (or that he is ultimately responsible for) were the right ones, but the negative results were because of bad luck.

While I'm not a big fan of the FO, there's is some truth to it depending on how objective you want to be and what model you are using for accessing risk/reward. Some would say that the moves he made were based on logical projections of past performance and reasonable likelihoods, others would say that signs were ignored and wishful thinking became the model.

The easiest thing to do is apply hindsight and say the moves Antonetti is responsible for were horrible, but I'm sure even the most cynical Tribe fans were hoping that some of these moves would pan out and at some level a logical basis for why they might be good was at least entertained.

Was it completely stupid to think Kotchman would at least fall somewhere between his career .260 and the previous year's .300?

Was it obvious that Damon was washed up when he stole nearly 20 bases and hit 16 home runs while playing 150 games for Tampa last year?

Was it unreasonable to think Sizemore's rehab would go well and he could at least contribute something?

Is it out of the realm of possibility to expect Jimenez to receive coaching and be able to fix his mechanics?

Is it crazy to expect that Santana would take the next logical step in his development and raise his average and hit for more power?

Could it have been predicted or even expected that Tomlin, Masterson and Gomez would all seriously underperform in the same year?

There's more, but a lot of the problems this year were not necessarily reasonable to expect, Hafner's injuries notwithstanding. I can see this side of their story.

However, there is the negative evaluation that does not rely on hindsight that is disconcerting:

Is there a model that shows that a lineup of mostly left handed bats has been successful and that teams wouldn't exploit it to the tune of calling up LH minor league pitchers to make "emergency starts" and then using mostly LH relievers from the 6th inning on?

If they do believe that left handed heavy lineups are the next big thing, why would you not want at least one left handed starter on your roster? I guess it's a chess vs. checkers thing.

When your system is completely devoid of right handed power hitters, why in the world would you not see that as a critical position of need in the draft or in your FA/trading strategy? Is it because you have secret evidence that projects Shelley Duncan and Matt Laporta to be regular, contributing power hitters?

When it's obvious your team can't hit for power, why would you not tell your manager that he might want to mix in a little 'small ball' strategy and try to manufacture some runs?

Why does the system continue to produce players that have low baseball IQs? Plate discipline, base running, fielding fundamentals are all consistently poor on a team that can't afford them to be.

Why is it necessary to tell the fans that you are in serious discussions to sign free agents you have absolutely no intention of signing? Do you think we are that stupid?

Do you really believe that it is a fan's responsibility to support a product, in a down economy, that it doesn't believe in and that the only hope we have of seeing serious attempts at acquiring even mid-level players the roster is desperate for, is if we do fill the stands? Does "if they come, we will build it" even make sense? It's like GM saying that if consumers buy our crappy car, we'll start to invest in ways to make it better.

Clearly there are issues that are out of a GM's control and player performance expectations are a serious issue, but there are a lot of systematic and organizational problems that are completely controllable and have nothing to do with "small market realities" and "economic challenges" that, until taken seriously, will continue set this team up for failure.

Last edited 9/29/2012 6:48 AM by KMSbuck

Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/29/2012 9:05 AM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


Why do so many want to ignore reality and rant about anyone stating facts. The market is small and attendance is poor. It fell off sharply after the string of sell outs and reverted to the norm of the rest of the last 50 years but spmehow Shapiro is Alize or spinner if he mentions it. With reality comes the need to take chances. Some work some dont. I a certain with an unlimited budget we would have seen Pujoles at first ad CC and Lee in the rotation and everyone could say our front office was brilliant. Money all was all about accepting the reality and creating a new matrix to Perdue success. We have a matrix we ignore. We have almost no money committed long term. We could literally release everyone on the team and proceed with no money tied up in salary. What we will do is build the rest of the team around young cheap talent. If you don't like this team you have an excellent chance of seeing a much different team next year
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/29/2012 12:04 PM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


It's not about spending money huge amounts of money. The Indians aren't the only small market team to face poor economic realities. It's about ignoring glaring holes and systematic organizational failures that lead to an underperforming franchise and fan frustration.

Poor drafting, poor development, failure to receive decent ROI on franchise player trades, failure to recognize obvious needs and taking a lot of risks that consistently haven't panned out.

On the balance sheet of hits and misses, there are way more misses than hits. There is little faith that if they released everyone and started over that they wouldn't keep making the same mistakes.

jameseboy wrote: Why do so many want to ignore reality and rant about anyone stating facts. The market is small and attendance is poor. It fell off sharply after the string of sell outs and reverted to the norm of the rest of the last 50 years but spmehow Shapiro is Alize or spinner if he mentions it. With reality comes the need to take chances. Some work some dont. I a certain with an unlimited budget we would have seen Pujoles at first ad CC and Lee in the rotation and everyone could say our front office was brilliant. Money all was all about accepting the reality and creating a new matrix to Perdue success. We have a matrix we ignore. We have almost no money committed long term. We could literally release everyone on the team and proceed with no money tied up in salary. What we will do is build the rest of the team around young cheap talent. If you don't like this team you have an excellent chance of seeing a much different team next year
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/29/2012 2:37 PM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



KMSbuck wrote:
Clearly there are issues that are out of a GM's control and player performance expectations are a serious issue, but there are a lot of systematic and organizational problems that are completely controllable and have nothing to do with "small market realities" and "economic challenges" that, until taken seriously, will continue set this team up for failure.

KMS, I don't necessarily agree with everything--maybe not even most--of what you said in your excellent post, but it was a terrifically articulated and balanced appraisal from the loyal opposition.  Good stuff, much better than most of what one sees from critics, most of whom base all their conclusions on perfect 20-20 hindsight.  Those of us--dwindling in number--who generally support ownership (or at least recognize the thin margin between success and failure) need to be able to respond to your conclusions to remain credible.  It ain't easy.

One thing you didn't raise is an issue I keep wondering about: where does this organization now stand with respect to the continuum between old-fashioned baseball scouting and modern analytical techniques?  Are we balanced?  Leaning one direction or another?  Blended?  And where's Waldo?  (Keith Woolner)  And how much did our reliance on one approach or another lead us to the current circumstances and is it now discredited?  Or it too the victim of poor luck?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 9/29/2012 4:47 PM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



WhoAzcue wrote:

One thing you didn't raise is an issue I keep wondering about: where does this organization now stand with respect to the continuum between old-fashioned baseball scouting and modern analytical techniques?  Are we balanced?  Leaning one direction or another?  Blended?  And where's Waldo?  (Keith Woolner)  And how much did our reliance on one approach or another lead us to the current circumstances and is it now discredited?  Or it too the victim of poor luck?
I don't know the answer but let me attempt to answer in a general way how a prudent FO would approach.

Nate Silver, the inventor of PECOTA, has out a new book called The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predications Fail  -- But Some Don't. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but I have looked at the chapter that discusses baseball.

Please keep in my mind that the facts that follow and where identified as such the opinions are his.  The conclusion I draw is mine even though I believe it to be consistent with Silver's opinion.

For the 2006 draft PECOTA ranked Dustin Pedroia the fourth best prospect.  Contrast this with the opinion of many scouts:

. . .who dismissed Pedroia as "not fiscally gifted," critiquing his short stature and his loopy swing and concluding that he would be a marginal player.

Baseball America, which traditionally relies heavily on scouting, ranked him seventy-seventh.

So the question as your post suggests it should be is whether a FO should rely on PECOTA or scouting.  My answer is "neither."  A prudent FO would be why the huge difference between PECOTA and scouting?  Silver's baseball chapter is in fact about trying to answer that question.  He essentially concluded that there were indicators that Pedroia should have been ranked higher than many scouts ranked him.

Similarly, if scouting ranked a player highly and a system like PECOTA ranked them low a similar investigation should be done.

Now before anyone thinks Silver is being biased and trying to prove the superiority of stats he offers some major examples where PECOTA was horribly wrong.  He also did a comparison of the predictions of Baseball America versus PECOTA in terms of WARP and finds Baseball America to be the clear winner.

He points out biases of both scouts and "statheads."  Cross checking helps identify what biases might be present.

One problem with relying too heavily on stats is that it only very indirectly measures a player's mental toolbox*.  Scouting does a superior job of this and (my opinion) is if scouting finds a weak mental toolbox a team should be pretty leery of drafting a player very high regardless of the stats unless they strongly believe that his mental toolbox can be improved.

Going back to the question I propounded earlier the answer is that scouting and stats are complimentary.  A prudent FO gathers as much information as possible and on an individual case basis examines the information, explores the reason(s) for conflict and then makes an informed judgment.


_________
*  He lists and briefly discusses (1) Preparedness and Work Ethic; (2) Competitiveness and Focus; (3) Stress Management and Humilty; and (5) Adaptiveness and Learning Ability.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/30/2012 3:20 AM

Re: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



JenniferMarie wrote:
ronfh wrote: Team president Mark Shapiro said on Thursday that the organization has confidence in Antonetti's strategy for the building of a contending team.

"We obviously look at a broad range of criteria when we're evaluating everybody," Shapiro said. "Chris is dealing with a set of challenges, which I understand, some of which are the creation of the organization that he and I ran together, and some of which are the result of other decisions.

"But I feel he's controlled the bulk of what he can control well. [Indians CEO Paul Dolan] and I still endorse strongly [Antonetti's] vision for how we can be competitive and, ultimately, a championship team.

"We feel that he's uniquely qualified and more capable than any other person in leading us to that outcome."
http://cleveland.indians.mlb.c...rticle_39130812


At this point it appears that if there was an interview Bastian was doing a one on one because every site that offers the Shapiro quotes about Antonetti coming back sources Bastian.

It is also possible that there was not even an interview but Shapiro and Dolan's comments were from a media handout.
An excellent point and an extremely likely event.  Oops!  I mouthed off without considering the possibilitieseek
Reply | Quote

Posted: 9/30/2012 9:41 AM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



KMSbuck wrote: Regarding the "controllable" issues, I think Shapiro believes that the decisions Antonetti has made (or that he is ultimately responsible for) were the right ones, but the negative results were because of bad luck.

While I'm not a big fan of the FO, there's is some truth to it depending on how objective you want to be and what model you are using for accessing risk/reward. Some would say that the moves he made were based on logical projections of past performance and reasonable likelihoods, others would say that signs were ignored and wishful thinking became the model.

The easiest thing to do is apply hindsight and say the moves Antonetti is responsible for were horrible, but I'm sure even the most cynical Tribe fans were hoping that some of these moves would pan out and at some level a logical basis for why they might be good was at least entertained.

Was it completely stupid to think Kotchman would at least fall somewhere between his career .260 and the previous year's .300?

Was it obvious that Damon was washed up when he stole nearly 20 bases and hit 16 home runs while playing 150 games for Tampa last year?

Was it unreasonable to think Sizemore's rehab would go well and he could at least contribute something?

Is it out of the realm of possibility to expect Jimenez to receive coaching and be able to fix his mechanics?

Is it crazy to expect that Santana would take the next logical step in his development and raise his average and hit for more power?

Could it have been predicted or even expected that Tomlin, Masterson and Gomez would all seriously underperform in the same year?

There's more, but a lot of the problems this year were not necessarily reasonable to expect, Hafner's injuries notwithstanding. I can see this side of their story.

However, there is the negative evaluation that does not rely on hindsight that is disconcerting:

Is there a model that shows that a lineup of mostly left handed bats has been successful and that teams wouldn't exploit it to the tune of calling up LH minor league pitchers to make "emergency starts" and then using mostly LH relievers from the 6th inning on?

If they do believe that left handed heavy lineups are the next big thing, why would you not want at least one left handed starter on your roster? I guess it's a chess vs. checkers thing.

When your system is completely devoid of right handed power hitters, why in the world would you not see that as a critical position of need in the draft or in your FA/trading strategy? Is it because you have secret evidence that projects Shelley Duncan and Matt Laporta to be regular, contributing power hitters?

When it's obvious your team can't hit for power, why would you not tell your manager that he might want to mix in a little 'small ball' strategy and try to manufacture some runs?

Why does the system continue to produce players that have low baseball IQs? Plate discipline, base running, fielding fundamentals are all consistently poor on a team that can't afford them to be.

Why is it necessary to tell the fans that you are in serious discussions to sign free agents you have absolutely no intention of signing? Do you think we are that stupid?

Do you really believe that it is a fan's responsibility to support a product, in a down economy, that it doesn't believe in and that the only hope we have of seeing serious attempts at acquiring even mid-level players the roster is desperate for, is if we do fill the stands? Does "if they come, we will build it" even make sense? It's like GM saying that if consumers buy our crappy car, we'll start to invest in ways to make it better.

Clearly there are issues that are out of a GM's control and player performance expectations are a serious issue, but there are a lot of systematic and organizational problems that are completely controllable and have nothing to do with "small market realities" and "economic challenges" that, until taken seriously, will continue set this team up for failure.
I've stopped reading posts from here lately. I'm extremely grateful I caught this post!!

This is one of the most well thought out posts I have read in years on Scout. I'm a little jealous that I couldn't post this myself. Great points, and anyone who is truly an objective thinker should really put some stock in this post and the thought process that went into it both from KMS and from KMS's thought process as how the Indians FO might have been thinking at the time of the points. Again, great post. I knew there was still a few people that I enjoyed reading posts from. I hope you post here more often.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/3/2012 12:10 AM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 


Here are all of Antonetti's moves since he officially became manager. From an article at IPI.

Last year in Antonetti’s first year as general manager his major signings in the offseason were minor league deals to third baseman Jack Hannahan, infielder Adam Everett, outfielder Austin Kearns, first baseman Nick Johnson, and outfielder Travis Buck. His big free agent splashes were second baseman Orlando Cabrera and right-handed reliever Chad Durbin. He also made minor depth trades to acquire right-handed pitcher Joe Martinez and traded away left-hander Aaron Laffey for a minor league infielder.

In the middle of last season Antonetti traded two low profile minor leaguers for outfielder Kosuke Fukudome, and a few days later traded Drew Pomeranz, Alex White, Joe Gardner, and Matt McBride in a career defining deal for right-hander Ubaldo Jimenez.

Then this past offseason Antonetti resigned oft-injured outfielder Grady Sizemore to a guaranteed one year $5 million deal. In addition to resigning Sizemore, his big free agent splashes were first baseman Casey Kotchman and outfielder Johnny Damon. He signed several other players to minor league deals like infielder Jose Lopez, right-handed reliever Jeremy Accardo, outfielder Ryan Spilborghs, right-handed reliever Dan Wheeler, and shortstop Christian Guzman.

On the trade front Antonetti sent away a Single-A pitcher to the Braves for right-handed starter Derek Lowe, traded right-handed reliever Zach Putnam to the Rockies for right-handed starter Kevin Slowey, and traded right-handed reliever Cory Burns to the Padres for outfielder Aaron Cunningham. Over the summer he traded for infielder Brent Lillibridge.

That’s it. Those are all the major moves Antonetti has made in his two years as GM.

There are tons of other small moves where they signed many others to minor league deals or claimed players off waivers like Russ Canzler and Esmil Rogers, but the moves listed above were the most significant moves that the Indians have made while under Antonetti’s reign.
www.indiansprospectinsider.com...-survives-32587

I see nothing there to say he performed well enough to stay as GM. And now after reading CP tell us what he thought of Acta's leadership ability, it clearly was a mistake for Antonetti to sign Acta and pickup his option.

Acta was 26-61 his last 87 games in Wash. Acta was 28-59 his last 87 games in Cle.

The Indians have lost 90+ games 3 out of 4 years. Something that has never happened in Cle history. You would think that the FO responsible for the history making record in futility would be fired.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/3/2012 12:12 AM

RE: Indians Keeping Antonetti 



JenniferMarie wrote: A prudent FO gathers as much information as possible and on an individual case basis examines the information, explores the reason(s) for conflict and then makes an informed judgment.
And since this FO has made poorly thought out decisions then they need to be let go.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >