The Tigers have fired Al Avila

[oblong]

3 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

But how much of that was because of Slater? Bob Quinn was with the Patriots from 2000-2015, only two losing season during that time.

That's the unknown and at least in football shows that you can't just follow the second in commands.

But I think baseball's front offices are larger and have more ground to cover given their different development practices.

I just think it's silly to compare two executives based on job titles alone.  That tells you almost nothing about the quality of their work.

 

[RandyMarsh]

Sure hiring a guy from a winning organization doesnt guarantee he will be a success and you could end up with Bob Quinn but given the choice Id rather go after a guy from a winning organization than a losing one.

[chasfh]

If we are looking for a guy who is going to come in and break things, remake the entire front office, and implement a system that's roughly 180 degrees opposite from the scout-centric, analytics-phobic approach they were doing before, I have my doubts that we're going to get that from Mike Slater, again, based just on the topline info we all have available to us.

I'm not saying Slater would be exactly like Al, but by the same token, I'm also not engaging in the magical thinking that because he's following Al, he will necessarily turn everything upside down and rebuild it all from scratch as an analytics-forward organization competitive on that front with the best in the game. Nothing I have seen in his background, or in that video for that matter, suggests that's much of a possibility. I'm eager to see any evidence to the contrary.

That all said, there could also be a certain comfort level Chris Ilitch would feel by hiring a guy who works much the same way as the guy he was publicly pressured to let go, due to the unfortunate circumstance that his moves happened to just not work and he eventually needed to pay the price. Ilitch doesn't seem like the kind of person who will obliterate something that's working poorly and then rebuild it from the ground up into a completely different structure. In that sense, he strikes me as a business conservative. If that's true, that might make Mike Slater one of the early front-runners for the chair as of today.

[mtutiger]

37 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I'm not saying Slater would be exactly like Al, but by the same token, I'm also not engaging in the magical thinking that because he's following Al, he will necessarily turn everything upside down and rebuild it all from scratch as an analytics-forward organization competitive on that front with the best in the game. Nothing I have seen in his background, or in that video for that matter, suggests that's much of a possibility. I'm eager to see any evidence to the contrary.

I don't know that Slater wouldn't come in and make significant changes if he were named the dude, but again, I do think the role he's played with the Cardinals, one which has been more about retooling / keeping the Cardinals relevant and in playoff contention is a much different animal than inheriting one of the worst rosters in baseball and having to retool or execute a rebuild on the fly.

I know they are different sports, but that's where I think the Bob Quinn comparison is relevant - when the Lions hired Quinn, they hired a guy who, by the time he had risen to prominence within the Patriots org, was already part of a perennial contender. And when push came to shove and he got the job running a team needing a significant overhaul, he didn't rise to the occasion, and perhaps that was at least in part due to the nature of the job being a lot different than what he was accustomed to.

One expects that whoever they hire will be better than Al Avila, but even among all of these candidates (almost all of whom seem to be from winning orgs), one imagines that there are things about their background that differentiate them and make them better or worse options. What the team values and what I value may be different, but when I look at them, the ideal candidate would have previous experience building up a losing ballclub. And Slater doesn't have that as far as I can tell.

Edited September 8, 2022 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I don't know that Slater wouldn't come in and make significant changes if he were named the dude, but again, I do think the role he's played with the Cardinals, one which has been more about retooling / keeping the Cardinals relevant and in playoff contention is a much different animal than inheriting one of the worst rosters in baseball and having to retool or execute a rebuild on the fly.

I know they are different sports, but that's where I think the Bob Quinn comparison is relevant - when the Lions hired Quinn, they hired a guy who, by the time he had risen to prominence within the Patriots org, was already part of a perennial contender. And when push came to shove and he got the job running a team needing a significant overhaul, he didn't rise to the occasion, and perhaps that was at least in part due to the nature of the job being a lot different than what he was accustomed to.

One expects that whoever they hire will be better than Al Avila, but even among all of these candidates (almost all of whom seem to be from winning orgs), one imagines that there are things about their background that differentiate them and make them better or worse options. What the team values and what I value may be different, but when I look at them, the ideal candidate would have previous experience building up a losing ballclub. And Slater doesn't have that as far as I can tell.

I agree with the conclusion of this post, but I am also struck by the irony that Al Avila did work in a front office for a team that went from historically bad to winning a couple of pennants. So, technically, he had previous experience ... 😏

Of course, that team bought their way to those pennants instead of building their way to them.

[sabretooth]

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I agree with the conclusion of this post, but I am also struck by the irony that Al Avila did work in a front office for a team that went from historically bad to winning a couple of pennants. So, technically, he had previous experience ... 😏

Of course, that team bought their way to those pennants instead of building their way to them.

Nah, they didn't buy the turnaround from 2005 to 2006; and while 2007 wasn't a pennant winner, they still won 88 games, and they didn't add any additional major FAs for 2007.  The team payroll was only a few million above the league median in 2007.

Once they signed Renteria and extended Willis in 2008, the payroll jumped into the top 10 and stayed there until the firesale in 2017. 

Interestingly, in 2012, the only Free Agent making more than $9M was Prince, and of course they also were paying JV and Miggy >$20M.  So 2012 really was three mega-stars et al type structure.

[chasfh]

39 minutes ago, sabretooth said:

Nah, they didn't buy the turnaround from 2005 to 2006; and while 2007 wasn't a pennant winner, they still won 88 games, and they didn't add any additional major FAs for 2007.  The team payroll was only a few million above the league median in 2007.

Once they signed Renteria and extended Willis in 2008, the payroll jumped into the top 10 and stayed there until the firesale in 2017. 

Interestingly, in 2012, the only Free Agent making more than $9M was Prince, and of course they also were paying JV and Miggy >$20M.  So 2012 really was three mega-stars et al type structure.

Interesting thing I noticed just now playing with B-Ref data:

In 2006, 89% of the $76 million payroll went to free agents (57%), while guys picked by us in the draft or the AFA market made just 7% of the payroll.

In 2012, the share of the $118 million payroll going to free agents was 38%, while 24% went to guys we either drafted or got via AFA. Spoiler alert: 17 points out of that 24% went to Justin Verlander alone.

[sabretooth]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Interesting thing I noticed just now playing with B-Ref data:

In 2006, 89% of the $76 million payroll went to free agents (57%), while guys picked by us in the draft or the AFA market made just 7% of the payroll.

In 2012, the share of the $118 million payroll going to free agents was 38%, while 24% went to guys we either drafted or got via AFA. Spoiler alert: 17 points out of that 24% went to Justin Verlander alone.

That is really funny!  I looked that up and was initially going to quote the same stats, as well as the fact that the 2022 Tigers spent about 2/3rds of their salaries on Free Agents.

They spent soooo much of the 2012 - 2016 payroll on extensions for Miguel, JV, and Miggy's bestest buddy and big toe, Victor.  Ahh, Victor.

If only Mike had liked Max as much as he liked Victor.  Avila could have traded Max away for peanuts in 2017 as well.

[Tiger337]

On 9/5/2022 at 10:35 AM, gehringer_2 said:

In all the years of reading Henning, the only column I ever read where he seemed to actually know something that was not easy conventional wisdom that did end up happening what that they were going to move Granderson. But OTOH, by this point you can chalk that up to the stopped clock being right twice a day since we have learned that Lynn is *always* proposing they move their best players for some new pot of gold, even if it's often mythical.

Then he spent the next several months taking unnecessary shots at Granderson. I never understood that.  

[Jim Cowan]

44 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Then he spent the next several months taking unnecessary shots at Granderson. I never understood that.  

Yes, he seemed to want to criticize Granderson's community involvement.

[RandyMarsh]

FWIW(which probably isn't much) somebody asked about the Tigers GM in Klaw's chat today and here's what he had to say.

Bill: Who would be a good fit for the Tigers’ GM position?
Keith Law: I’ve seen a bunch of good names and some extremely unimaginative ones. Josh Byrnes has been GM twice and succeeded in neither place. For him to get a third shot while qualified candidates, especially POC candidates, like Dana Brown, Jason McLeod, Billy Owens, Carlos Rodriguez, and others get passed over would be a giant fucking embarrassment for the Tigers and MLB.

[sabretooth]

6 hours ago, chasfh said:

If we are looking for a guy who is going to come in and break things, remake the entire front office, and implement a system that's roughly 180 degrees opposite from the scout-centric, analytics-phobic approach they were doing before, I have my doubts that we're going to get that from Mike Slater, again, based just on the topline info we all have available to us.

I'm not saying Slater would be exactly like Al, but by the same token, I'm also not engaging in the magical thinking that because he's following Al, he will necessarily turn everything upside down and rebuild it all from scratch as an analytics-forward organization competitive on that front with the best in the game. Nothing I have seen in his background, or in that video for that matter, suggests that's much of a possibility. I'm eager to see any evidence to the contrary.

That all said, there could also be a certain comfort level Chris Ilitch would feel by hiring a guy who works much the same way as the guy he was publicly pressured to let go, due to the unfortunate circumstance that his moves happened to just not work and he eventually needed to pay the price. Ilitch doesn't seem like the kind of person who will obliterate something that's working poorly and then rebuild it from the ground up into a completely different structure. In that sense, he strikes me as a business conservative. If that's true, that might make Mike Slater one of the early front-runners for the chair as of today.

This is unfortunately the most likely outcome with a disengaged, conservative, and risk-averse guy, which Chris seems to be IMHO.

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, sabretooth said:

This is unfortunately the most likely outcome with a disengaged, conservative, and risk-averse guy, which Chris seems to be IMHO.

And if that happens, that’ll be the nail in the coffin for the Ilitch Tigers. It will be dead franchise walking until he sells.

[oblong]

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

And if that happens, that’ll be the nail in the coffin for the Ilitch Tigers. It will be dead franchise walking until he sells.

I share the "play it safe" concerns.  Even in non baseball activities the organization does that.  They recently opened a starbucks on the groundfloor of the Fox.  It replaced a restaurant.  I'm thinking "There's a million of those....."  They made a big deal about it a few years ago.  I don't think it ever opened.

Basically they have to make things safe and appealing to the gang from places like Novi.  All the touristy stuff like Mom's Spaghetti and the Q Line.  

 

 

[chasfh]

15 minutes ago, oblong said:

I share the "play it safe" concerns.  Even in non baseball activities the organization does that.  They recently opened a starbucks on the groundfloor of the Fox.  It replaced a restaurant.  I'm thinking "There's a million of those....."  They made a big deal about it a few years ago.  I don't think it ever opened.

Basically they have to make things safe and appealing to the gang from places like Novi.  All the touristy stuff like Mom's Spaghetti and the Q Line.  

 

 

It bears remembering that like every other federally-protected big league franchise, the Tigers are making money hand-over-fist in terms of direct and indirect income, national revenue sharing, and especially franchise valuation. So, from a strictly business standpoint, as long as they’re making good money and the franchise value is going up, there’s no incentive to spend on capital improvements such as expanding the analytics department, deepening coaching and training staffs and equipment, or spending on even effective free agents in order to win games now (as if any decent free agent would choose the Tigers over any number of contenders anyway). The Tigers will make money and increase in value even if they continue to field 100-loss teams year after year. 

The only reason an owner would direct the organization to invest heavily, despite the lack of business imperative, is if they have a burning personal desire to put a consistent winning team on the field.

[buddha]

52 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It bears remembering that like every other federally-protected big league franchise, the Tigers are making money hand-over-fist in terms of direct and indirect income, national revenue sharing, and especially franchise valuation. So, from a strictly business standpoint, as long as they’re making good money and the franchise value is going up, there’s no incentive to spend on capital improvements such as expanding the analytics department, deepening coaching and training staffs and equipment, or spending on even effective free agents in order to win games now (as if any decent free agent would choose the Tigers over any number of contenders anyway). The Tigers will make money and increase in value even if they continue to field 100-loss teams year after year. 

The only reason an owner would direct the organization to invest heavily, despite the lack of business imperative, is if they have a burning personal desire to put a consistent winning team on the field.

you can also make more money if you have a better product to sell.

[RandyMarsh]

Maybe I'm putting too much faith in Chris but I don't think he's going to "play it safe" when it comes to the hire, if it ends up appearing that way I think it's going to be because people around him that is helping him make the hire talk him into that particular person. For instance if they are down to two guys and one is the "safe choice" and the other may be a potential up and comer viewed as a riskier hire if all the folks around him push for the latter I think he will go that route.  

[chasfh]

17 minutes ago, buddha said:

you can also make more money if you have a better product to sell.

This is probably true, although I am under the general impression that the increase in revenue versus spend may not be enough to warrant the spend, nor would the increase be guaranteed. 

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Maybe I'm putting too much faith in Chris but I don't think he's going to "play it safe" when it comes to the hire, if it ends up appearing that way I think it's going to be because people around him that is helping him make the hire talk him into that particular person. For instance if they are down to two guys and one is the "safe choice" and the other may be a potential up and comer viewed as a riskier hire if all the folks around him push for the latter I think he will go that route.  

Your keyboard to God’s monitor.

[RandyMarsh]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

This is probably true, although I am under the general impression that the increase in revenue versus spend may not be enough to warrant the spend, nor would the increase be guaranteed. 

Tigers and Detroit sports fans in general have shown that they will come out when the team wins, not so much when they lose Lions withstanding. When the Tigers were good they were averaging 3 mill + at the ball park now I think they're on pace for about half that. So if you average $100 a head between tickets, parking and concessions that extra 1.5 million people could bring in an extra $150 million a year and that doesn't count for potentially higher local TV ratings which can allow you to get a bigger deal there. 

Of course spending money doesn't guarantee a better product on the field but you financially it would seem it would be in his best interest to spend as much money within reason that it takes to try to win. 

[Edman85]

11 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

FWIW(which probably isn't much) somebody asked about the Tigers GM in Klaw's chat today and here's what he had to say.

Bill: Who would be a good fit for the Tigers’ GM position?
Keith Law: I’ve seen a bunch of good names and some extremely unimaginative ones. Josh Byrnes has been GM twice and succeeded in neither place. For him to get a third shot while qualified candidates, especially POC candidates, like Dana Brown, Jason McLeod, Billy Owens, Carlos Rodriguez, and others get passed over would be a giant fucking embarrassment for the Tigers and MLB.

I'm sick and tired of activism from the formerly baseball analytics types. Also, I didn't realize McLeod was a POC.

For somebody who is quick to jump down people's throats for logical fallacies, people like Law saying "Oh, they signed a white guy, it must be because they are white" is pretty fucking rich.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Edman85

[Biff Mayhem]

Not gonna lie, I had to look up "POC".

[sabretooth]

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

you can also make more money if you have a better product to sell.

I have always thought that it made more sense to accept more risk, not primarily to make more money, but to put a fun product on the field that people will enjoy and secondarily to make more money.  We are in a metro market area that is in the top 10 in the country and expatriated fans around the country.  So hell yeah there's lots of room to grow profits.

Also, after Miggy's contract is taken out of the equation the Tigers will be about $50M below the league average payroll.

Opportunity abounds! 

 

My *hope* is that Chris seizes it and goes for the molson.  Logically, he really should.  Why would a guy own a baseball team to make *some* money every year siring a lousy product, when he can go all-in and make a *lot* of money on a good product?

My *fear* is that if he was willing to pay Miggy's $25-30M contract, and rely on cheap/short-term contracts for guys like Cron and Schoop and such, and basically committ to losing a lot of games while making modest profits from 2017 - 2021, he might simply slip back into that mode again, but this time with Baez + ERods annual $40M spend in the place of Miggy's contract. 

The image of Henry Winkler in pumps shying away from a laughing Jerry Reed comes to mind.

 

I visited some other parks with winning teams, most recently ATL, and the atmosphere was electric.  I don't care if most of the fans who come to see a winner don't know baseball that well or only show up to see a winner. 

I am tired of going to Comerica and feeling like it's a library with a crazy librarian blasting music and making announcements on the loudspeakers. 

I'm not criticizing DET fans, but this team simply doesn't give us anything to cheer about, Chris, AA and Hinch/Fetters failed efforts to build a decent team (and bad luck in terms of injuries) in 2022 notwithstanding. 

 

This model is basically a no-name team, but it doesn't work.  Imagine the GTW Pistons if Sheed, Prince and Rip were battling injuries, Chauncey shot like Josh Smith, Ben Wallace was fighting a bad back, and they brought back Grant Hill as a face/name. 

Tigers fans are forced to cheer for a one-legged greybeard trying to lob soft singles over the second baseman's glove.

Hire a GM who knows how to build a minor-league system, can make trades, commands the owners respect and resources, and give this freaking team a league-average payroll.  Anything less is complete BS in my opinion.

[sabretooth]

16 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I'm sick and tired of activism from the formerly baseball analytics types. Also, I didn't realize McLeod was a POC.

For somebody who is quick to jump down people's throats for logical fallacies, people like Law saying "Oh, they signed a white guy, it must be because they are white" is pretty fucking rich.

I agree...that comment about POC seemed like virtue signaling.

[RatkoVarda]

53 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Tigers and Detroit sports fans in general have shown that they will come out when the team wins, not so much when they lose Lions withstanding. When the Tigers were good they were averaging 3 mill + at the ball park now I think they're on pace for about half that. So if you average $100 a head between tickets, parking and concessions that extra 1.5 million people could bring in an extra $150 million a year and that doesn't count for potentially higher local TV ratings which can allow you to get a bigger deal there. 

Of course spending money doesn't guarantee a better product on the field but you financially it would seem it would be in his best interest to spend as much money within reason that it takes to try to win. 

circling back to the Cardinals once again, they have created incredible equity in the franchise and I think that is directly tied to consistently winning. I assume that further improves revenue streams. and of course profits.

the Royals are worth half as much. doubtful the Royals come any where near the Cardinals' revenue. no idea if profits are similar to STL.

just spit balling and using the Cardinals as a model, it seems that Chris is failing to build literally hundreds of millions of dollars of equity because the product is so incredibly bad