If You Could Ask Alex Anthopoulos One Question, What Would It Be?

by Tom Dakers on Oct 22, 2009 1:51 PM EDT in Fun

Alex Anthopoulos is getting praise talking to all his players and coaches, which does make you wonder how low expectations are for a GM in Toronto that talking to your employees would be praise worthy. Anyway he does seem to be doing a very thorough look at the team to figure out what needs to be changed. He seems very bright to me, at least from the outside. I tend to think smart people listen to all view points, knowing that no one has all the answers, so hearing from others helps you come to the best solutions.

Anyway, I was wondering, if you were able to ask Alex Anthopoulos a question, what would it be?

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

What is the Jays payroll going to look like in 2010 and beyond?

It’s clear that they Jays are going to go out and spend money to compete with the Jays and Bosox. I’m not saying they need a rediculous $200M payroll, but $100M-$120M will probably be needed to keep Roy and to continue to build around him. This team probably needs a #2 starter and 2 or 3 more bats in the lineup to compete.

Week 7 Prediction:
Kansas City Chiefs 77 - San Diego Chargers 2

by craig in calgary on Oct 22, 2009 3:51 PM EDT reply actions

what is your 5 year plan?

lol

by REMO on Oct 22, 2009 7:14 PM EDT reply actions

i like that but I would like to know more specifically, what is your 1-, 3- and 5- year plans. What are your objectives and how do you intend to get there? What is different about what you will do than has been done in the past? If the Jays cannot beat BoSox and Yanks by outspending them, what is an alternative way to get to the top? (there are many ways to skin a cat — recklessly throwing money is not always the best solution to a problem [ do you hear that govts?! ] ) etc …

by aagoodfella on Oct 22, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I was more or less joking around. There always seemed to be some kind of controversy surrounding the fanbase and whether JP committed to some kind of 5 year plan

I think my real question would be: Do you have a job for me?

by REMO on Oct 22, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Clearly the term '5 year plan'

will never emerge from Anthopoulos’ lips. Not that I really think they came out of JP’s, but I’m relatively sure that term used by an interviewer would end any interview.

by Tom Dakers on Oct 22, 2009 11:46 PM EDT reply actions

What evidence can you show me...

that establishes that you are competent rating “prospects?” IF you can’t show me evidence, what antidotal evidence can you share with me about various prospects projections you’ve been right about?

by Mylegacy on Oct 22, 2009 11:58 PM EDT reply actions

wow, pointed but relevant

by aagoodfella on Oct 23, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Ask Alex a Question

Would you be open to the idea to publish ALL names of players who tested positive for steroid use and when this list is published “push” for legal action against those players who in reality signed huge contracts “under false pretenses” ?

by KB in Saudi on Oct 23, 2009 5:47 AM EDT reply actions

What would it take to bring back Kevin Millar for another year?

LOL

by Shah_of_Husain on Oct 23, 2009 6:01 AM EDT reply actions

not funny. lol, yes it was.

by Andy Mc on Oct 23, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions

My Question would be:

Would you hire me to be the assistant GM?

by bunner on Oct 23, 2009 9:00 AM EDT reply actions

My Question(s)

1. Do you feel that the current revenue sharing agreement in the CBA (expiring in 2011) is working?
2. What changes would you like to see in the rev. sharing agreement in the future?
3. The Jays payroll of about $81M was 16th in the league. The 3 of the final 4 teams all have payrolls about $20 to $40M higher. Is Rogers prepared to send the additional money to get into the top 10 payroll bracket?
4. Of the 8 teams that made the playoffs 2 had payrolls in the same range as the Jays (Colorado and Cards) and one less (Twins). Are the Jays thinking that they can keep a mid level payroll and be competative?
5. Of the Final 4 teams, none had a payroll less than the Dodgers (in other words all in the top 10 payrolls), and only the Bosox (#4) were out. Going back to the competative question, would committing to a top 10 payroll for the next 3 to 5 years bring about playoff success, or at the very least pay off by an increased fan base by having a more competative team?

"Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything." ~ Toby Harrah

by No Bunting on Oct 23, 2009 9:45 AM EDT reply actions

spending money MAY be a necessary but not sufficient condition for winning … as Rios, Wells and Ryan contracts show, spending money does not necessarily produce results.

In contrast, contract spent on Halladay is money well spent, as was, I would argue and others would disagree I am sure, contract spent on Rolen. Batting 2 for 5 on multi-million dollar contracts is not going to produce a winner.

Oakland moneyball philosophy shows that you can win with lesser payroll. For Jays to win, IMHO, they are going to have to employ a combination of moneyball and moneyspent strategy. This will require building a deep organization in terms of farm system (to keep a full pipeline of prospects) and scouting (with global reach and non-paradigm constrained search ie: you employ hard hitting Ruiz-types even if they do not fit the prototypical development mold) combined with exceptionally judicious spending for high caliber talent (ie: more Halladay contracts and fewer Rios contracts).

Tough job fer sure, but than they do not hand out World Series crowns for sitting around on your arse.

by aagoodfella on Oct 23, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions

Well, lets look at Oakland since Moneyball

Moneyball was published in 2003, which documents the 2002 season, with an Afterward section in the paperback that tells the story of the 2003 playoffs.

If we look at the years since the book was first researched and published (2003 onwards), the A’s did the following:
Year ~~—Salary ($M) -~~-Salary Rank —Position (GB-W-L)
2003 -—- 50 -——— 21 -——— Won division-96-66
2004 -— 59 -——— 14 -——- 1GB-91-71
2005 -— 55 -——— 20 -——— 7GB-88-74
2006 -— 62 -——— 21 -——— Won Division-93-69
2007 -— 79 -——— 17 -——— 18GB-76-86
2008 -— 47 -——— 27 -——— 24.5GB-75-86
2009 -— 62 -——— 27 -——— 22GB-75-87

The A’s certainly did well in ’03 and ’06 with a seemingly bottom end payroll (21st position) but only about $5M (10%) increase in payroll would put them up into the 14 or 15 spot – so really pretty close to mid-level at the time – not really bargain basement stuff.

They won the division title in ’03 and ’06 with this close to middle of the pack payroll, and then got clobbered between 2007 to 2009, with 3 consecutive loosing seasons. The 2008 and 2009 seasons were the worst in a very long time, and both were with salary levels at close to rock bottom for the league.

The Mets and Yankees are good examples of how a monster payroll does not guarantee a championship, but a bargain basement payroll pretty much guarantees that you get what you pay for.

I didn’t have time to look at the A’s prior to 2003 but I’m guessing that when they were successful they were not exactly the bargain payroll that they were portrayed in Moneyball. Certainly not the highest payroll but a good example of value players but still having to spend decent cash to be competitive.

Overall message – (and I agree with your closing assessment) – spending more money, and smarter, is going to be necessary to make the post season. Draft pics and the farm system won’t do it. Trades for current talent – not prospects – will be necessary.

"Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything." ~ Toby Harrah

by No Bunting on Oct 24, 2009 3:05 AM EDT up reply actions