Article: Joe Maddon is Out in Tampa. Could Twins Get Him?

[tobi0040]

The job seeker cold-calling a prospective employer is not the standard expectation here (unless perhaps the job seeker had a strong preference for this particular employer, i.e. home nearby or past professional history).

 

Should Jon Lester be expected to call the Twins this offseason, just to inquire interest?

 

Yeah, 10-12 teams will call Lester and Max at 12:01 when free agency opens up.  But we will wait for them to call us so we have negotiating leverage. Really drive their price down and pounce.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Doogie tweeted that the Twins have talked with Maddon, for whatever that's worth. (not a swipe at Doogie - far from it - just pointed out the vague nature of the tweet)

[Otto von Ballpark]

Yeah, 10-12 teams will call Lester and Max at 12:01 when free agency opens up.  But we will wait for them to call us so we have negotiating leverage. Really drive their price down and pounce.

Actually I found that nugget about TR's trade approach -- waiting for others to initiate talks -- fascinating.  It's actually a pretty good (albeit obviously not aggressive) approach to trades -- when you inquire about a player or players, it does naturally follow that you lose a lot of leverage.  If the Twins call the Nationals about Alex Meyer, the Nationals probably ask for the moon (and they probably did initially anyway); but if the Nationals call the Twins about Denard Span, and the Twins keep coming back to Alex Meyer in their discussions, it's a whole different situation.  (The problem, naturally, is you need to have desirable assets to make this work, and even then you're operating more on other teams timelines.)

 

It's a little more problematic when it comes to free agents, since there is an obvious defined market and time frame for them.  Although he showed some signs of bucking that trend last winter.  (Similarly, TR's pre-2008 approach to international players might best be described as "waiting out the market" given the results he got from it.)

[Mike Sixel]

Bunk on the leverage thing. The moment you ask for a guy, the other teams know you want him, even if they call first. IME, negotiations don't work that who calls first is at a disadvantage. Maybe in baseball it's different than what I've experienced in other lines of work, but I find that hard to believe.

[tobi0040]

Bunk on the leverage thing. The moment you ask for a guy, the other teams know you want him, even if they call first. IME, negotiations don't work that who calls first is at a disadvantage. Maybe in baseball it's different than what I've experienced in other lines of work, but I find that hard to believe.

 

Maybe it is a sign that you want the guy, but at the end of the day you get to approve or decline any trade.  Sounds like the letting people call you is just being lazy, or frankly in the case of the Maddon thing a cop out.

 

If he was the best available guy and we had some small percentage chance to get him but he never called, it seems like we missed out. 

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think it is lazy at all. I just think we don't agree on whether it really matters all that much in the end.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Bunk on the leverage thing. The moment you ask for a guy, the other teams know you want him, even if they call first. IME, negotiations don't work that who calls first is at a disadvantage. Maybe in baseball it's different than what I've experienced in other lines of work, but I find that hard to believe.

For Maddon, or free agents -- I agree it's bunk.

 

For player trades, I think it plays a part (although obviously a relatively minor one).  It's a much less structured market.

[Mike Sixel]

How much better of a player does a team have to give up if it calls first, instead of takes a call? Do people think it really makes a difference? If the Twins call first, do they give up a guy 5 - 10 spots higher on their list? I just don't buy it at all. I could be wrong, but it seems......not likely.

[Otto von Ballpark]

How much better of a player does a team have to give up if it calls first, instead of takes a call? Do people think it really makes a difference? If the Twins call first, do they give up a guy 5 - 10 spots higher on their list? I just don't buy it at all. I could be wrong, but it seems......not likely.

You're looking at it from a video game simulation perspective, which is problematic by itself, but there are a whole lot more outcomes that you're not considering.

 

How about, if you call about trading for a minor leaguer, you're slightly less likely to actually land him than if the other team calls you?  (Of course, once you factor in that the other team may not call you at all, it's probably a wash.  But there are other ways to approach it too -- you can discuss other players before bringing up the guy you want, or you can discuss a player at the trading deadline and then revisit it later, etc.)

 

Of course it varies too what kind of player you are calling about.  Minor leaguers and less-heralded prospects are going to be affected by this much more than an established MLB player.  For example, if the Twins called the Braves last winter about Gilmartin, maybe they don't simply give him up for Doumit, or at least not as quickly -- they had no pressing need to unload Gilmartin at that point, who required neither a 40-man roster spot nor much money, so any sign that he had more value to other teams might have caused them to re-evaluate.  (Of course, the Twins could call the Braves about pitching help in general and find their way to Gilmartin indirectly... or more likely, they have Gilmartin and others on a list for every team which they reference whenever a trade inquiry comes in, and rarely target such players so precisely.)

 

On the other hand, if it is the summer of 2001 and we call the Mets about Rick Reed, they're not going to hold out for more just because they didn't call us for Matt Lawton first.

 

I'll admit, it's going to be a minor effect and perhaps undetectable given the multitude of other variables around trades, but given the lack of structure and many possible outcomes, I can't say there wouldn't be an effect.

 

(A related approach and effect might be seen in teams that seek/offer lots of trades, versus teams that don't. TR's restrained approach might nab slightly higher returns and/or close deals quicker than a team that comes across as more reckless in its approach.)

[Mike Sixel]

No, I'm looking at it from having been in negotiations in businesses, not from a video game perspective.

 

And, there might be "some" effect, but really, how much effect? Should it really be some kind of principle a team actually follows? (not saying they do, but others have said that, I have no idea)

[Otto von Ballpark]

No, I'm looking at it from having been in negotiations in businesses, not from a video game perspective.

 

And, there might be "some" effect, but really, how much effect? Should it really be some kind of principle a team actually follows? (not saying they do, but others have said that, I have no idea)

The video game perspective was the idea there would be an ordered list of prospects with a number attached, and increasing or decreasing the number would be the primary effect of these different approaches.

 

Like I said, I don't think it's a major effect, but it's probably there and it's not necessarily a bad thing either.  Think of it less like altering the trade, and more like altering a team's valuation of a player.  If some team calls us about Eddie Rosario, I think that could/should alter TR's valuation of him, to some degree.

[ashbury]

The video game perspective was the idea there would be an ordered list of prospects with a number attached, and increasing or decreasing the number would be the primary effect of these different approaches..

The video game has that list explicitly and at hand, and it can be a bit silly.  But don't you think most teams have such a list implicitly, in the sense of "I'd rather give up this guy than that guy, if trying to swing a deal"?  To an outsider like me it doesn't seem so crazy, thinking in terms of such a list, as a way of making sense of how trades happen.  "If I pick up the phone first, I might end up having to offer a better player than if I wait for the phone to ring" still seems like a way to think of things, and a list reflects that.  It's fine if that list has great numbers of players ranked equivalently, instead of with decimal point gradations.

[Mike Sixel]

I'd think teams rank their players like crazy......if you don't have to give up a better player, then who calls first doesn't matter. So, do we really think calling first means you give up appreciably more than waiting to be called? What if no one ever calls you? You never make trades? I just can't believe this is an actual practice of any sports team.

[Kwak]

Ryan wants to be called (rather than calling) because it makes him believe that he has leverage.  Whether it really does confer leverage is another matter.  What I find illuminative is Ryan "has the need for speed" (leverage). 

[jokin]

I'd think teams rank their players like crazy......if you don't have to give up a better player, then who calls first doesn't matter. So, do we really think calling first means you give up appreciably more than waiting to be called? What if no one ever calls you? You never make trades? I just can't believe this is an actual practice of any sports team.

 

Why is this a thing?  Even Terry Ryan doesn't believe the nonsense being printed.  No negotiation can ever happen until one side picks up the phone... and I would venture that Ryan has initiated as many conversations as he's taken from others.

[jokin]

Ryan wants to be called (rather than calling) because it makes him believe that he has leverage.  Whether it really does confer leverage is another matter.  What I find illuminative is Ryan "has the need for speed" (leverage). 

 

To be fair, Ryan hasn't exactly had a strong hand to leverage from since his return.

[FattCrapps]

Well that was short lived.

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/11797575/chicago-cubs-fire-manager-rick-renteria-one-season

Edited October 31, 2014 by FattCrapps

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well that was short lived.

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/11797575/chicago-cubs-fire-manager-rick-renteria-one-season

I think we now understand why the Twins didn't pursue Maddon past a phone call. This sounds dangerously close to collusion on the Cubs' part.

 

I completely get why the Cubs wanted Maddon and why Maddon wanted the Cubs, I just hope they did it above board because if I was a Rays fan, I'd be livid right now.

[D. Hocking]

The 2017 World Series should be fun with Maddon managing the Cubs against the Twins managed by "To be determined"  (my current guess is Lovello).

 

It will be interesting to see how Maddon will do with the Cubs.  With his IQ and Theo's track record I suspect it will be a good match, but you never know.   Sometimes for some unforeseen reasons what should be a sure-thing does not always work (or repeat itself in a new environment) when it seems like it should.

 

I was a little critical for not more of an active seeking out of Maddon, and have not always liked all of Terry's moves, but he is sharp fellow.  I am guessing he knew this was already a done deal when Maddon made his announcement (or shortly afterwards).

Edited October 31, 2014 by D. Hocking

[ashbury]

Well that was short lived.

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/11797575/chicago-cubs-fire-manager-rick-renteria-one-season

"The Chicago Cubs will announce the hiring of former Tampa Bay Rays skipper Joe Maddon as the 54th manager in franchise history on Monday, the team announced in a release."

 

I wish they had announced that this announcement was coming, first.