Comments on: J.P Ricciardi: Not a Total Failure Part #1 http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/ A Toronto Blue Jays Fan Site - News, Blogs, Opinion and More Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:12:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Steve http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4180 Steve Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:41:13 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4180 There is no proof that the Wells signing was Godfrey's doing and you're right that they both insist that it was Ricciardi's initiative. But Ricciardi has a tough time keeping his mouth shut and in interviews he has alluded to a certain trade that he made that Godfrey wouldn't sign off on because he was a fan of the player. Most people speculate that he was referring to Wells and in fact before the signing there were rumours from some good sources that Wells was headed to the Dodgers. Officially, Ricciardi has to maintain that the Wells signing was his initiative unless he's given up all hope of ever being a GM again. While it's weak, it qualifies as evidence. So no, there is not zero evidence. Because of the nature of how things are done amongst GMs it's rare to find strong evidence and so we put two and two together sometimes. I used the word "evidence" in reference to the alleged trade. As for the signing that followed, I still say it (and Frank Thomas' signing) has Godfrey's fingerprints all over it. I won't defend Ricciardi on any other signing, but these two were handled far differently from the way Ricciardi usually handled things. In the end, he was the GM and so he is the one who seals the deal and he is accountable, but the way these two contracts were handled were far more indicitave of the way Godfrey does business than the way Ricciardi went about his business. For one, they were handled with a level of professionalism not usually shown by Ricciardi and I could go on. As for Hinske, I never said I agreed with his signing but the trade to get him was reasonable. It simply didn't work out that well for either team in the end. When the jays signed Hinske he had just won the Rookie of the Year award and everyone had high hopes for him. He didn't live up to expectations. It happens. You can't judge a guy on a handful of deals that you didn't like and ignore all the deals that did work out. In the end, under Ricciardi the Jays were a .500 club playing in the AL East on a small market budget (without 10 straight last place finishes like Tampa). They didn't win the big prize. They never came close. OK, agreed - he failed to deliver. But the only way to reach the conclusion that he was a bad GM is to overstate his errors and completely overlook the long list of moves that did work out. If you say you don't like him, that he has a big nose, that he says stupid things, that he pissed people off, that he was annoying, that he failed to deliver on his main goal, I'm not going to argue with you. But to say that he was a bad GM is just ridiculous - the overall body of work just doesn't support that in any way. There is no proof that the Wells signing was Godfrey’s doing and you’re right that they both insist that it was Ricciardi’s initiative. But Ricciardi has a tough time keeping his mouth shut and in interviews he has alluded to a certain trade that he made that Godfrey wouldn’t sign off on because he was a fan of the player. Most people speculate that he was referring to Wells and in fact before the signing there were rumours from some good sources that Wells was headed to the Dodgers. Officially, Ricciardi has to maintain that the Wells signing was his initiative unless he’s given up all hope of ever being a GM again. While it’s weak, it qualifies as evidence. So no, there is not zero evidence. Because of the nature of how things are done amongst GMs it’s rare to find strong evidence and so we put two and two together sometimes. I used the word “evidence” in reference to the alleged trade. As for the signing that followed, I still say it (and Frank Thomas’ signing) has Godfrey’s fingerprints all over it. I won’t defend Ricciardi on any other signing, but these two were handled far differently from the way Ricciardi usually handled things. In the end, he was the GM and so he is the one who seals the deal and he is accountable, but the way these two contracts were handled were far more indicitave of the way Godfrey does business than the way Ricciardi went about his business. For one, they were handled with a level of professionalism not usually shown by Ricciardi and I could go on. As for Hinske, I never said I agreed with his signing but the trade to get him was reasonable. It simply didn’t work out that well for either team in the end. When the jays signed Hinske he had just won the Rookie of the Year award and everyone had high hopes for him. He didn’t live up to expectations. It happens. You can’t judge a guy on a handful of deals that you didn’t like and ignore all the deals that did work out. In the end, under Ricciardi the Jays were a .500 club playing in the AL East on a small market budget (without 10 straight last place finishes like Tampa). They didn’t win the big prize. They never came close. OK, agreed – he failed to deliver. But the only way to reach the conclusion that he was a bad GM is to overstate his errors and completely overlook the long list of moves that did work out. If you say you don’t like him, that he has a big nose, that he says stupid things, that he pissed people off, that he was annoying, that he failed to deliver on his main goal, I’m not going to argue with you. But to say that he was a bad GM is just ridiculous – the overall body of work just doesn’t support that in any way.

]]> By: G Man http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4178 G Man Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:59:14 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4178 There is exactly ZERO evidence that the Wells contract rather than trade was Godfrey's doing. I would be the last one to ever defend Godfrey, but both Godfrey and Ricciardi continue to insist to this day that the contract was at Ricciardi's initiative. What I didn't like about the Hinske contract was that it was unneccessary. If the budget limitations were as you say, the Ricciardi would have been better off moving assets like Hinske and Wells and Rios before losing control, rather than throwing money at them. He did this with Koch but it wasn't something he consistently did effectively. As I said, the other problem with the Hinske deal was Ricciardi then went out and signed 2 more corner infielders (one of whom, Hillenbrand, he was able to get value from, to his credit). I don't mean to pick on the one deal, but to me it was emblematic of his shortcomings, including other poor decisions on contracts. There is exactly ZERO evidence that the Wells contract rather than trade was Godfrey’s doing. I would be the last one to ever defend Godfrey, but both Godfrey and Ricciardi continue to insist to this day that the contract was at Ricciardi’s initiative.

What I didn’t like about the Hinske contract was that it was unneccessary. If the budget limitations were as you say, the Ricciardi would have been better off moving assets like Hinske and Wells and Rios before losing control, rather than throwing money at them. He did this with Koch but it wasn’t something he consistently did effectively.

As I said, the other problem with the Hinske deal was Ricciardi then went out and signed 2 more corner infielders (one of whom, Hillenbrand, he was able to get value from, to his credit).

I don’t mean to pick on the one deal, but to me it was emblematic of his shortcomings, including other poor decisions on contracts.

]]> By: Steve http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4176 Steve Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:33:20 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4176 The rankings are highly subjective and present a snapshot of the level of talent at a given point in time. It does not take into account a farm system that is short on talent because it has recently graduated a number of players. It also doesn't take into account players that are underperforming or injured. For example, JP Arencibia had a bad year in 2009 (looking like he would never make it to the big leagues)and that would have been a contributing factor to the Jays low ranking that year, then he was huge in 2010 and that would have helped bring the ranking up. Also, keep in mind also that a farm system's ranking is not based solely on draft picks but also international free agents and minor league acquisitions. The top players that contributed to the Jays #4 farm ranking in 2011 are Drabek, D'arnaud, Gose (all acquired directly or indirectly through the Halladay trade started by Ricciardi and finished by AA), Lawrie (aquired by trading Marcum - drafted by Ricciardi), the afore-mentioned Arencibia (drafted by Ricciardi), Stewart acquired by Ricciardi), Hecchavaria (international free agent by AA) and several highly touted draft picks from 2009 and 2010 that its way to early to say if they will develop or not. That's another important factor to consider - that a prospect does not provide any value to his club until he reaches the majors and that many prospects flame out and never make it. There are teams that always seem to do well in these rankings but their prospects never seem to realize their potential in the majors. A more useful way of looking at how well a GM has drafted is by seeing how many of his draft picks have 1. made it to the show, and 2. how much impact they had once they made it. In both of these measures JP ranks in the top 5 in MLB compared to other GMs during his tenure, and he did this without having very many extra picks and without going over slot on his picks. I would say that the evidence shows that he drafted a whole lot better than his peers. The rankings are highly subjective and present a snapshot of the level of talent at a given point in time. It does not take into account a farm system that is short on talent because it has recently graduated a number of players. It also doesn’t take into account players that are underperforming or injured. For example, JP Arencibia had a bad year in 2009 (looking like he would never make it to the big leagues)and that would have been a contributing factor to the Jays low ranking that year, then he was huge in 2010 and that would have helped bring the ranking up. Also, keep in mind also that a farm system’s ranking is not based solely on draft picks but also international free agents and minor league acquisitions. The top players that contributed to the Jays #4 farm ranking in 2011 are Drabek, D’arnaud, Gose (all acquired directly or indirectly through the Halladay trade started by Ricciardi and finished by AA), Lawrie (aquired by trading Marcum – drafted by Ricciardi), the afore-mentioned Arencibia (drafted by Ricciardi), Stewart acquired by Ricciardi), Hecchavaria (international free agent by AA) and several highly touted draft picks from 2009 and 2010 that its way to early to say if they will develop or not. That’s another important factor to consider – that a prospect does not provide any value to his club until he reaches the majors and that many prospects flame out and never make it. There are teams that always seem to do well in these rankings but their prospects never seem to realize their potential in the majors. A more useful way of looking at how well a GM has drafted is by seeing how many of his draft picks have 1. made it to the show, and 2. how much impact they had once they made it. In both of these measures JP ranks in the top 5 in MLB compared to other GMs during his tenure, and he did this without having very many extra picks and without going over slot on his picks. I would say that the evidence shows that he drafted a whole lot better than his peers.

]]> By: fred draper http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4175 fred draper Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:58:46 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4175 It's not that JP didn't draft OK. It's that others drafted a whole lot better, and developed better too. How else do you explain a 28th place ranking by BA and others. The fact that AA now has the system up to 4th or 5th in one year tells you all you need to know. It’s not that JP didn’t draft OK. It’s that others drafted a whole lot better, and developed better too.

How else do you explain a 28th place ranking by BA and others.

The fact that AA now has the system up to 4th or 5th in one year tells you all you need to know.

]]> By: Steve http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4173 Steve Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:30:07 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4173 There are a few different comments that I wanted to reply to so I'll do one general one. 1. People have been trying to claim for years that Ricciardi didn't draft well. It's now too obvious that those sentiments are as far from the truth as you can get. As for his trades/signings, he didn't do too badly. All GMs have good trades and bad ones. You can name his bad ones (I'm sure some of you will), but I can name more that worked out. People always bring up Hinske. What about losing Billy Koch was so painful? As for JPs spending spree, let's try to look at this objectively. From 2001 through 2006, the Jays had one of the lowest budgets in MLB. When Rogers finally stepped up, they raised the team's budget to the lower middle range. Compared to the Interbrew years in terms of real dollar value (i.e., what you could buy with it) Ricciardi was still operating on less than what Gord Ash had. Godfrey also wasn't as savvy as Beeston when it came to getting agreements from Rogers. Whereas Beeston has gotten commitments from Rogers that the money will be there when they need it, Ricciardi had to spend the money or lose it. As for the Wells, Rios, Thomas and Ryan signings. All evidence suggests that Ricciardi tried to trade Wells and that Godfrey nixed it. His fingerprints are also all over the signing. In pinning it on Ricciardi you have to ignore the way he did things because the negotiations for the Wells signing (and the Frank Thomas signing) were handled very differently than all of his other signings. BJ Ryan only looks bad because he failed to recover from his Tommy John surgery. Rios' salary is also not ridiculously high for his talent level. There are a few different comments that I wanted to reply to so I’ll do one general one. 1. People have been trying to claim for years that Ricciardi didn’t draft well. It’s now too obvious that those sentiments are as far from the truth as you can get. As for his trades/signings, he didn’t do too badly. All GMs have good trades and bad ones. You can name his bad ones (I’m sure some of you will), but I can name more that worked out. People always bring up Hinske. What about losing Billy Koch was so painful? As for JPs spending spree, let’s try to look at this objectively. From 2001 through 2006, the Jays had one of the lowest budgets in MLB. When Rogers finally stepped up, they raised the team’s budget to the lower middle range. Compared to the Interbrew years in terms of real dollar value (i.e., what you could buy with it) Ricciardi was still operating on less than what Gord Ash had. Godfrey also wasn’t as savvy as Beeston when it came to getting agreements from Rogers. Whereas Beeston has gotten commitments from Rogers that the money will be there when they need it, Ricciardi had to spend the money or lose it. As for the Wells, Rios, Thomas and Ryan signings. All evidence suggests that Ricciardi tried to trade Wells and that Godfrey nixed it. His fingerprints are also all over the signing. In pinning it on Ricciardi you have to ignore the way he did things because the negotiations for the Wells signing (and the Frank Thomas signing) were handled very differently than all of his other signings. BJ Ryan only looks bad because he failed to recover from his Tommy John surgery. Rios’ salary is also not ridiculously high for his talent level.

]]> By: Duncan http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4171 Duncan Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:03:50 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4171 Scott, I know that JP had a few good picks and trades, but for the most part, he did not come as advertised - a drafting guru. Now, in retrospect, it is possible he was a decent selector of talent, but that the farm system development process was broken. For example, he kept drafting catchers no later than the 4th round every year and only Arencibia seems to have stuck after 8 years of trying. And, since Anthopolous has taken over, the player development side seems to be much better, but this opinion isn't based on any data. So maybe this was the weakness. That being said, where he really suffers is in comparison to AA. And when you do that, good riddance! I just wish AA had been capable of taking over 3-4 years earlier. Scott, I know that JP had a few good picks and trades, but for the most part, he did not come as advertised – a drafting guru. Now, in retrospect, it is possible he was a decent selector of talent, but that the farm system development process was broken. For example, he kept drafting catchers no later than the 4th round every year and only Arencibia seems to have stuck after 8 years of trying. And, since Anthopolous has taken over, the player development side seems to be much better, but this opinion isn’t based on any data. So maybe this was the weakness.

That being said, where he really suffers is in comparison to AA. And when you do that, good riddance! I just wish AA had been capable of taking over 3-4 years earlier.

]]> By: Scott Barber http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4170 Scott Barber Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:53:22 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4170 The draft record is checkered, no doubt- but who’s isn’t? He had a set plan for drafting as you mentioned, in that he took a lot of low-risk, arguably low-ceiling players, generally out of college rather than high school. It netted some pretty solid players, and that is basically what this post is about. The draft record is checkered, no doubt- but who’s isn’t? He had a set plan for drafting as you mentioned, in that he took a lot of low-risk, arguably low-ceiling players, generally out of college rather than high school. It netted some pretty solid players, and that is basically what this post is about.

]]> By: Scott Barber http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4169 Scott Barber Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:52:40 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4169 You're right, virtually every GM in sports has some form of success. (even Phillips- Reyes, Wright ect.). The point I am trying to illustrate with this post and the ones to follow is that Ricciardi's fingerprints are all over this Blue Jay club- and it's not all bad. You’re right, virtually every GM in sports has some form of success. (even Phillips- Reyes, Wright ect.). The point I am trying to illustrate with this post and the ones to follow is that Ricciardi’s fingerprints are all over this Blue Jay club- and it’s not all bad.

]]> By: Scott Barber http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4166 Scott Barber Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:01:52 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4166 I would never argue that Ricciardi was a good general manager- simply that there are moves he made that continue to play a pivotal role in the Jays promising future. I would never argue that Ricciardi was a good general manager- simply that there are moves he made that continue to play a pivotal role in the Jays promising future.

]]> By: Scott Barber http://jaysjournal.com/2011/06/01/j-p-ricciardi-not-a-total-failure-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4165 Scott Barber Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:58:56 +0000 http://jaysjournal.com/?p=7915#comment-4165 Steve Phillips? Steve Phillips?

]]>