Today's loss to the Tampa Bay Rays (47-39) dropped the Toronto Blue Jays (43-44) below the .500 mark for the first time this season, which, sadly, is probably a more accurate reflection of this team's ability than their 22-12 start that gave them the best record in the American League [Jerry Crasnick, ESPN.com]. That early start was largely piled up against weaker opponents, and was also aided by some incredible performances from unlikely pitching stars. Since then, the Jays have fallen back to earth.
This still isn't a bad team, though. The Jays aren't the best team in baseball by a long shot, but they are a bit unlucky and have a knack of losing close games by a run or two, as this most recent sweep by Tampa Bay has demonstrated; the Jays fell 3-1, 10-9 and 3-2 in a series of very winnable games that dramatically hurt their record and their playoff chances. Their Pythagorean win expectation (which suggests what a team's record should be based on runs scored and allowed) was at 46-40 after yesterday's game, not a huge difference in terms of pure games, but one that would have them right behind Tampa Bay and theoretically in contention for at least a wild-card playoff berth. Instead, the Jays have put up plenty of runs in blowout wins, but not enough in the close games. The playoffs would still be a long shot if their record sat at 46-40, but a bit of luck as to which games runs showed up in would make things seem a bit more rosy than the current gloomy atmosphere.
When you consider that the pitching rotation has been held together with dreams and duct tape this year, even a 43-44 record is impressive. Soon after the start of the year, four of last year's five regular starters were out of commission, with A.J. Burnett lost to the Yankees in free agency and Dustin McGowan, Shaun Marcum and Jesse Litsch all likely out for the season thanks to injury. The lone survivor was the staff ace, Roy Halladay, who has been outstanding as usual this year (2.79 ERA, 154 ERA+, 10-3 record), but has faced minor injury problems of his own and missed a few games. Moreover, he also may not be around for long, if general manager J.P. Ricciardi's claims about listening to trade offers for him [Jeff Blair, The Globe and Mail] are to be believed. Pitchers Ricky Romero and Scott Richmond have stepped up admirably (145 and 117 ERA+ respectively), and Brian Tallet and Brett Cecil have been okay, but it's awfully difficult to contend in the toughest division in baseball with a pitching staff composed of spare parts. The relief side's been impressive as well, particularly closer Scott Downs (213 ERA+), but also Jason Frasor and Shawn Camp (168 and 113 ERA+ respectively).
The position players have been even better. Aaron Hill is having a season at second base that would put Roberto Alomar to shame, hitting .298/.336/.496 with 20 HR and 59 RBI and making highlight-reel plays in the field. Marco Scutaro is lighting it up at shortstop and batting .283/.382/.413, while Scott Rolen's hitting .330/.390/.486 and Lyle Overbay's batting .254/.375/.469. The lineup's dragged down a bit by the likes of Alex Rios and Vernon Wells and the odd decision to keep using Raul Chavez as a part-time catcher; Chavez has a good arm and is decent defensively, but he has the bizarre statistic of having a batting average exactly equal to his on-base percentage (both .262); he hasn't drawn a single walk in 85 plate appearances. Still, this is a strong batting lineup; Toronto's team OPS+ of 104 is fourth-best in the American League, and their team OBP of .340 is seventh-best.
In any case, this season is likely a lost cause. It would be tremendously difficult to come back even into the wild-card race at this point in time, particularly considering the strength of the Jays' own division. Not all is lost, though, and that's why the recent rumours about the Halliday trade strike me as odd. Halliday is still locked up for the next year, and keeping him around would give the Jays a plethora of pitching talent; Litsch and Marcum are likely to be back, McGowan may be back as well, and Romero and Richmond are also in the mix for the rotation. Tallet could return to the bullpen, perhaps joined by Cecil, and the Jays would have one of the better pitching staffs in the league. Moreover, if their hitters can keep up their production from this year and perhaps even underacheivers like Wells and Rios can be swapped out for prospects like Travis Snider or free agents, this team could be a powerhouse that could compete for the division title.
The window of opportunity is limited, though. With the strength of the AL East, it's very difficult to compete with Boston and New York year-in and year-out, especially when your attendance numbers are among the worst in the league. Toronto fans aren't going to the ballpark in numbers any more, and it's difficult to blame them; although it's still a lot of fun to go catch a game, the team hasn't been in contention for what feels like forever. That leaves ownership with a tough decision to make. They could cut payroll to a lower level and trade away Toronto's established assets for prospects, hoping to contend down the road, but that's likely to hurt attendance even more and isn't any guarantee of success.
The other option is to roll the dice. Keep Halladay for now and be active in the off-season, either via trading prospects for established players or signing players in free agency to buttress the roster. Try to resign him to a long-term deal before the next season starts, or hope that success will be enough motivation to convince him to come back. Spend big for a year or two and go for broke; a winning team will produce buzz, increase attendance and pay off the cost of the acquisitions, especially if they make the playoffs.
The status quo isn't particularly helpful, as the Jays are good enough to raise hopes and avoid high draft picks, but bad enough not to come close to the playoffs. To me, there's little point in trying to blow the roster up and start from scratch when the team is potentially so close. In my mind, the better option is to try and win within the next couple of seasons, when the team's still close to the top. The requiem for this season has been written, but there's still a lot of hope for the future.
Showing posts with label free agency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free agency. Show all posts
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
NFL free agency interviews: Kevin Ewoldt of Hogs Haven
Here's the final post from my series of interviews for this piece for The Good Point on free agency in the NFL, featuring an extended interview with Kevin Ewoldt of the great Washington Redskins site Hogs Haven. Previous posts in this series include my interviews with Sean Yuille of Pride of Detroit and Michael Bean of Behind the Steel Curtain. My questions and Kevin's answers are below, with minor edits for clarity. I also highly recommend this recent post from his site, comparing the Redskins' front office to those of the Patriots and Colts, and this older interview with Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis about the Capitals' franchise-building philosophy and how that might translate to football.
Andrew Bucholtz: Is there any free-agent signing by the Redskins over the last two decades that stands out as particularly bad to you? Did it seem like a bad idea at the time, or did it prove that way in retrospect?
Kevin Ewoldt: There are a lot: Deion Sanders, Steve Spurrier [ed note: free-agent coach], Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd. The ones that sting the most are actually the ones where Washington traded draft picks away in return for the busts. Draft picks are how you keep youth on your roster. For Brandon Lloyd, the Skins traded a third-round pick and a fourth-round pick before awarding him a $10 million signing bonus. For T.J. Duckett, the Skins also traded a third-round pick. In return, T.J. only carried the ball 38 times in his career with Washington. Jason Taylor we acquired for a second-round pick and a sixth-round pick. The players in exchange all played one year (Deion, Duckett, Taylor). Lloyd played basically 1.5 years.
A.B.: Conversely, is there any free-agent signing that stood out as a particularly good move? If so, what worked about it (i.e. the money, the length of contract, filling a needed hole, etc)?
K.E.: London Fletcher stands out as a great signing. The Redskins went in the right direction when Gregg Williams and Joe Gibbs were running the show. London is the anchor of the Skins' defense and is the hands-down vocal leader of the locker room. He plays with heart and is a true leader.
A.B.: In the Leonsis article, you mentioned that "over-extending the length of contracts to aged vets" was the worst quality of the Redskins' front office. How would you rectify this if you were in Vinny Cerrato's shoes? Would you impose hard caps on money or term for veteran players (i.e. no one over 30 is offered more than X million over Y years), would you try to move towards shorter-term contracts throughout the organization, or would you evaluate each situation individually?
K.E.: The Redskins continually trade away draft picks, so their only option in filling holes is free agency. If I were in Vinny's shoes, I would be realistic about the situation. If you take a look at the all the successful franchises, the head coach plays a major role in the draft and free agency: [Bill] Belichick with the Patriots and Bill Cowher those years with the Steelers. The Redskins are very impatient with coaches, so the new incoming coach has to inherit the current roster and they basically have one to two years for success. That is a recipe for failure in my eyes. You need continuity.
A.B.: On a similar note, do you think teams that are active in the free-agent market should focus on younger, riskier players that haven't proven a lot yet or veterans with a track record?
K.E.: I think it depends on the situation and position. I wouldn't rule out either. I would certainly make the player's personality a factor. Brandon Lloyd had publicized issues with his coaches in San Francisco, and it was his downfall in DC as well.
A.B.: With the Haynesworth signing, at the time you wrote, "Lord help us all if this is true." Do you still think it was a bad move, and if so, what's the biggest problem with it (money, term, or just the wrong player)?
K.E.: I think Haynesworth is a good addition IF he stays healthy. If he only plays one or two years, then obviously it would have been a bad deal. Since there will likely be no salary cap next year and the Redskins have a ton of cash there isn't a lot of risk here. The team did not have to give up any draft picks which matters most to me. I'm hoping the Redskins can use their first pound pick this year to help take advantage of all the holes Haynesworth will create (assuming all the stud offensive lineman are off the board).
A.B.: Do you see the Redskins keeping up their big-spending habits in free agency moving forward? Why or why not?
K.E.: Absolutely. As long as Snyder and Cerrato are in charge, nothing will change regarding the big-spending. They always believe we're only one or two players (or coaches) away from a championship. I disagree with that. The team improved when Joe Gibbs was in control. He knew what players fit his system and who was coachable. Greg Blache, the Skins' defensive coordinator, was againt the Jason Taylor trade/signing, but the front office did it anyway. That speaks volumes.
A.B.: Imagine Dan Snyder has asked you to draft a blueprint for building a winning franchise. What would you include under the "Free Agents" section (i.e. what rules would govern your ideal franchise's free-agency moves)?
K.E.: See the Ted Leonsis article. Free agents should compliment the roster and the core group of players on the squad should push them. It is backwards in Washington. The free agents receive their fat checks and simply just play. I do think the front office has improved a bit in their signings. The Skins are now paying the big bucks for players under 30 years old.
Thanks again to Kevin for taking the time to answer my questions. You can check out his site here.
Andrew Bucholtz: Is there any free-agent signing by the Redskins over the last two decades that stands out as particularly bad to you? Did it seem like a bad idea at the time, or did it prove that way in retrospect?
Kevin Ewoldt: There are a lot: Deion Sanders, Steve Spurrier [ed note: free-agent coach], Adam Archuleta, Brandon Lloyd. The ones that sting the most are actually the ones where Washington traded draft picks away in return for the busts. Draft picks are how you keep youth on your roster. For Brandon Lloyd, the Skins traded a third-round pick and a fourth-round pick before awarding him a $10 million signing bonus. For T.J. Duckett, the Skins also traded a third-round pick. In return, T.J. only carried the ball 38 times in his career with Washington. Jason Taylor we acquired for a second-round pick and a sixth-round pick. The players in exchange all played one year (Deion, Duckett, Taylor). Lloyd played basically 1.5 years.
A.B.: Conversely, is there any free-agent signing that stood out as a particularly good move? If so, what worked about it (i.e. the money, the length of contract, filling a needed hole, etc)?
K.E.: London Fletcher stands out as a great signing. The Redskins went in the right direction when Gregg Williams and Joe Gibbs were running the show. London is the anchor of the Skins' defense and is the hands-down vocal leader of the locker room. He plays with heart and is a true leader.
A.B.: In the Leonsis article, you mentioned that "over-extending the length of contracts to aged vets" was the worst quality of the Redskins' front office. How would you rectify this if you were in Vinny Cerrato's shoes? Would you impose hard caps on money or term for veteran players (i.e. no one over 30 is offered more than X million over Y years), would you try to move towards shorter-term contracts throughout the organization, or would you evaluate each situation individually?
K.E.: The Redskins continually trade away draft picks, so their only option in filling holes is free agency. If I were in Vinny's shoes, I would be realistic about the situation. If you take a look at the all the successful franchises, the head coach plays a major role in the draft and free agency: [Bill] Belichick with the Patriots and Bill Cowher those years with the Steelers. The Redskins are very impatient with coaches, so the new incoming coach has to inherit the current roster and they basically have one to two years for success. That is a recipe for failure in my eyes. You need continuity.
A.B.: On a similar note, do you think teams that are active in the free-agent market should focus on younger, riskier players that haven't proven a lot yet or veterans with a track record?
K.E.: I think it depends on the situation and position. I wouldn't rule out either. I would certainly make the player's personality a factor. Brandon Lloyd had publicized issues with his coaches in San Francisco, and it was his downfall in DC as well.
A.B.: With the Haynesworth signing, at the time you wrote, "Lord help us all if this is true." Do you still think it was a bad move, and if so, what's the biggest problem with it (money, term, or just the wrong player)?
K.E.: I think Haynesworth is a good addition IF he stays healthy. If he only plays one or two years, then obviously it would have been a bad deal. Since there will likely be no salary cap next year and the Redskins have a ton of cash there isn't a lot of risk here. The team did not have to give up any draft picks which matters most to me. I'm hoping the Redskins can use their first pound pick this year to help take advantage of all the holes Haynesworth will create (assuming all the stud offensive lineman are off the board).
A.B.: Do you see the Redskins keeping up their big-spending habits in free agency moving forward? Why or why not?
K.E.: Absolutely. As long as Snyder and Cerrato are in charge, nothing will change regarding the big-spending. They always believe we're only one or two players (or coaches) away from a championship. I disagree with that. The team improved when Joe Gibbs was in control. He knew what players fit his system and who was coachable. Greg Blache, the Skins' defensive coordinator, was againt the Jason Taylor trade/signing, but the front office did it anyway. That speaks volumes.
A.B.: Imagine Dan Snyder has asked you to draft a blueprint for building a winning franchise. What would you include under the "Free Agents" section (i.e. what rules would govern your ideal franchise's free-agency moves)?
K.E.: See the Ted Leonsis article. Free agents should compliment the roster and the core group of players on the squad should push them. It is backwards in Washington. The free agents receive their fat checks and simply just play. I do think the front office has improved a bit in their signings. The Skins are now paying the big bucks for players under 30 years old.
Thanks again to Kevin for taking the time to answer my questions. You can check out his site here.
Friday, April 24, 2009
NFL free agency interviews: Sean Yuille of Pride of Detroit
All the hype at the moment is around tomorrow's NFL draft, but it's important to remember that free agency plays just as important of a part in the offseason. One team that will be watched closely in both the draft and free agency is the Detroit Lions, who went 0-16 last year and are in full-on rebuilding mode. They hold the #1 and #20 overall picks, plus a second-rounder, two third-rounders, two sixth-rounders and a seventh-round pick, so the draft will be a key part of the turnaround; they've already agreed to a deal to give anticipated #1 pick Matthew Stafford more guaranteed money than any player in NFL history [Kevin Seifert, ESPN.com].
The team may be active in the free agent market as well, though, and it will be interesting to watch and see what they do there. As part of the preparation for this piece on free agency at The Good Point, I spoke with Sean Yuille of Pride of Detroit, the SB Nation Lions blog, about the team's historical moves in free agency and what role free agents will play in their rebuilding efforts. Sean had some great insights, but I couldn't fit them all into the overarching piece, so I figured I'd present them here for those interested in the Lions and free agency as a whole. The interview is below with minor edits for grammar and readability. If you like it, you can also check out Part I of this series, my extended interview with Michael Bean of the great Steelers' site Behind The Steel Curtain.
Andrew Bucholtz: Thanks for taking the time to do this, Sean. In your mind, what's the worst free agency move the Lions have made since the [Scott] Mitchell signing? What was the problem with it (age, money, injury?), and could it have been predicted? You can limit it to the worst move in the last couple of years if that's easier.
Sean Yuille: There isn't one specific move that stands out to me, because generally, the Lions haven't broken the bank for somebody. That never has been their style. Instead, especially once the [Matt] Millen era began, the Lions focused on signing guys that wanted to come to Detroit for a reasonable price. That is part of the reason why the Lions have been so bad over the years since Millen came to Detroit.
If I had to pick one, though, it probably would be bringing Jeff Garcia to Detroit. Joey Harrington's career was on the ropes, and adding in Garcia was basically the nail in Harrington's coffin in Detroit. The two battled for the starting position and when Garcia returned from an injury, he got to play. He started his career in Detroit with a win over the Browns, but after that it was all downhill. He actually lost the job back to Harrington and wasn't even offered a contract the following offseason.
A.B.: What's the most effective free agent signing the Lions have made in that period? Why did it work well?
S.Y.: If you would have asked me this prior to last season, I actually may have answered Jon Kitna. Under Mike Martz, Kitna put up good numbers and did lead the Lions to their best season in quite some time in 2007. What happened in the first month of the 2008 season, however, prevents me from answering with Kitna. He fell apart, so much so that the Lions shelved him even though he hadn't actually experienced a season-ending injury. It turned into a train wreck pretty quickly, and in general it is tough to remember one great signing the Lions made. Usually most of their talent came through the draft. When you pick as high as the Lions have since 2000, you're bound to make a good pick every once in a while.
A.B.: The Lions are obviously in a bit of a rebuilding mode at the moment. What role should free agents play in that process as opposed to draft picks? Also, do you see that role changing down the road (i..e. focus on bringing in players through the draft for the next couple of years and then turn to key free agents once the team has a shot at contending)?
S.Y.: I think free agents should play a big role. When rebuilding a team, overhauling the roster is necessary. You can't replace everyone via the draft, so free agency is very important to bringing new faces to the team. I think once a foundation is established the focus can shift more towards the draft. That way you don't have to worry about signing so many new players, and if there is a big fish out there that is the missing piece of the puzzle, you can spend the money to sign him.
A.B.: Do you see the Lions' handling of free agents changing now that Matt Millen isn't running the team? If so, how do you expect it to change?
S.Y.: I don't see it changing too drastically, but one thing I have noticed is that the Lions are no longer stockpiling their roster with players from the coaches' former teams. Although the Lions did look at a few Titans, it was nothing like the Lions' love fest with ex-Bucs and ex-Rams when Rod Marinelli was the coach and Mike Martz was the offensive coordinator. Every other signing seemed like it was a former Buc or Ram, and that led to an aging roster filled with washed up players. The Lions haven't shied away from signing players that may be past their prime, but at least they are no longer signing them based on the fact that they played for the head coach's former team.
A.B.: If you were assigned to develop a set of guidelines for the Lions regarding free agency, what would they be? (i.e. would you lay out strict restrictions on the money and terms offered to free agents or treat each situation as it goes? Would age affect your guidelines? Would you seek to stock certain positions through free agency and others through the draft?)
S.Y.: I think each situation is different, though age is definitely a factor. In general, though, I would prefer the Lions not go out and spend money like the Redskins do, for example. At the same time, it is not smart to sit back and sign only players that are willing to come in for a cheap price. I think the Lions need to find a healthy medium where they can make a big splash every once in a while and also maintain a comfortable salary cap.
Thanks again to Sean for taking the time to answer my questions. Make sure to keep an eye on his site during the draft later today and the Lions' offseason!
The team may be active in the free agent market as well, though, and it will be interesting to watch and see what they do there. As part of the preparation for this piece on free agency at The Good Point, I spoke with Sean Yuille of Pride of Detroit, the SB Nation Lions blog, about the team's historical moves in free agency and what role free agents will play in their rebuilding efforts. Sean had some great insights, but I couldn't fit them all into the overarching piece, so I figured I'd present them here for those interested in the Lions and free agency as a whole. The interview is below with minor edits for grammar and readability. If you like it, you can also check out Part I of this series, my extended interview with Michael Bean of the great Steelers' site Behind The Steel Curtain.
Andrew Bucholtz: Thanks for taking the time to do this, Sean. In your mind, what's the worst free agency move the Lions have made since the [Scott] Mitchell signing? What was the problem with it (age, money, injury?), and could it have been predicted? You can limit it to the worst move in the last couple of years if that's easier.
Sean Yuille: There isn't one specific move that stands out to me, because generally, the Lions haven't broken the bank for somebody. That never has been their style. Instead, especially once the [Matt] Millen era began, the Lions focused on signing guys that wanted to come to Detroit for a reasonable price. That is part of the reason why the Lions have been so bad over the years since Millen came to Detroit.
If I had to pick one, though, it probably would be bringing Jeff Garcia to Detroit. Joey Harrington's career was on the ropes, and adding in Garcia was basically the nail in Harrington's coffin in Detroit. The two battled for the starting position and when Garcia returned from an injury, he got to play. He started his career in Detroit with a win over the Browns, but after that it was all downhill. He actually lost the job back to Harrington and wasn't even offered a contract the following offseason.
A.B.: What's the most effective free agent signing the Lions have made in that period? Why did it work well?
S.Y.: If you would have asked me this prior to last season, I actually may have answered Jon Kitna. Under Mike Martz, Kitna put up good numbers and did lead the Lions to their best season in quite some time in 2007. What happened in the first month of the 2008 season, however, prevents me from answering with Kitna. He fell apart, so much so that the Lions shelved him even though he hadn't actually experienced a season-ending injury. It turned into a train wreck pretty quickly, and in general it is tough to remember one great signing the Lions made. Usually most of their talent came through the draft. When you pick as high as the Lions have since 2000, you're bound to make a good pick every once in a while.
A.B.: The Lions are obviously in a bit of a rebuilding mode at the moment. What role should free agents play in that process as opposed to draft picks? Also, do you see that role changing down the road (i..e. focus on bringing in players through the draft for the next couple of years and then turn to key free agents once the team has a shot at contending)?
S.Y.: I think free agents should play a big role. When rebuilding a team, overhauling the roster is necessary. You can't replace everyone via the draft, so free agency is very important to bringing new faces to the team. I think once a foundation is established the focus can shift more towards the draft. That way you don't have to worry about signing so many new players, and if there is a big fish out there that is the missing piece of the puzzle, you can spend the money to sign him.
A.B.: Do you see the Lions' handling of free agents changing now that Matt Millen isn't running the team? If so, how do you expect it to change?
S.Y.: I don't see it changing too drastically, but one thing I have noticed is that the Lions are no longer stockpiling their roster with players from the coaches' former teams. Although the Lions did look at a few Titans, it was nothing like the Lions' love fest with ex-Bucs and ex-Rams when Rod Marinelli was the coach and Mike Martz was the offensive coordinator. Every other signing seemed like it was a former Buc or Ram, and that led to an aging roster filled with washed up players. The Lions haven't shied away from signing players that may be past their prime, but at least they are no longer signing them based on the fact that they played for the head coach's former team.
A.B.: If you were assigned to develop a set of guidelines for the Lions regarding free agency, what would they be? (i.e. would you lay out strict restrictions on the money and terms offered to free agents or treat each situation as it goes? Would age affect your guidelines? Would you seek to stock certain positions through free agency and others through the draft?)
S.Y.: I think each situation is different, though age is definitely a factor. In general, though, I would prefer the Lions not go out and spend money like the Redskins do, for example. At the same time, it is not smart to sit back and sign only players that are willing to come in for a cheap price. I think the Lions need to find a healthy medium where they can make a big splash every once in a while and also maintain a comfortable salary cap.
Thanks again to Sean for taking the time to answer my questions. Make sure to keep an eye on his site during the draft later today and the Lions' offseason!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
NFL free agency interviews: Michael Bean of Behind the Steel Curtain
I've been working on an extensive piece for The Good Point on NFL free agency for most of the last month, and finally finished it off the other day; check it out if you're interested in a look at how different NFL teams view free agency and the strengths and weaknesses of certain approaches. Tremendous thanks are due to Will Leitch of Deadspin and New York Magazine, Michael Bean (Blitzburgh) of Behind The Steel Curtain, Sean Yuille of Pride of Detroit and Kevin Ewoldt of Hogs Haven for taking the time to answer my questions. They all have a great understanding of the NFL and how their teams approach free agency.
Of course, space restrictions and the thematic approach I took meant that I couldn't fit all the information I received from these guys into my article, so I figured I'd run some of the interviews here as companion pieces. First up, Michael Bean. Michael runs Behind The Steel Curtain, one of the best and most popular Pittsburgh Steelers blogs on the planet. My questions and his responses are below (with minimal edits for grammar and clarity):
Andrew Bucholtz: How would you describe the Steelers' philosophy with regards to signing other teams' free agents? Why has it been successful?
Michael Bean: The Steelers' philosophy with regards to signing other teams' free agents is one of caution and prudence. You'll rarely see the Steelers compete in high-priced bidding wars for high profile free agents like Albert Haynesworth, particularly if the FAs are over 30 years of age or past their peak window physically. What you will see the Steelers do is go after undervalued guys coming off their first contract; guys like Mewelde Moore, Keyaron Fox, etc. In many instances, the Steelers' scouting department simply sees something in other guys that other teams do not, and in others, there's simply situations with other teams' rosters that account for why they're available in the first place. Mewelde Moore is a great example - where's there room for him with superstar Adrian Peterson and highly paid Chester Taylor in front of him on the depth chart [ed note: with the Vikings]?
A.B.: Obviously, the Steelers have let some of their own expensive free agents walk over the years, particularly Alan Faneca and Plaxico Burress. What did you think of those moves at the time, and have your thoughts changed since then?
M.B.: No, the Steelers' front office has a nearly impeccable track record of deciding when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. In the case of Alan Faneca, there's just no way to match an offer that made him the highest paid G in the league. Doesn't make sense any way you carve it up. Same with a guy like Joey Porter, who certainly has proven he has a thing or two left in the tank. But there were James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley ready to step in his place, and at a very, very small fraction of the cost.
A.B.: Does the recent large contract extension given to James Harrison indicate a change in organizational philosophy, or is it just a different situation than with Faneca and Burress? Is he less replaceable?
M.B.: I don't think it represents a change in philosophy, though it's certainly a legitimate question considering Harrison's age. People forget that James Farrior also got a big extension in his 30s, so I don't think their philosophy can be compartmentalized one way or another. In Harrison's case, he's just been the best value in the league the past two years...period. I think that part of this contract represents some 're-payment' of sorts for being so amazing at such a small cost and I think that his unparalleled work ethic makes him a safer bet to stay healthy and productive in the coming years than are most guys his age. Harrison, who's referred to as 'Deebo' by his teammates in homage to the character in the movie Friday, was apparently back in the weight room two days after the Super Bowl, and he was ticked off that none of his teammates were joining him there. Translation? This guy eats, drinks and sleeps football - and as has been relayed on to me from sources closer to the team than me - that's the number-one thing the front office looks for in their determination of who to draft and invest in long-term.
A.B.: Why do the Steelers tend to offer players contract extensions a year before they become free agents? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this system?
M.B.: I think the short answer is that they have typically made up their mind a year before players hit the market whether or not to resign them. If they feel good about investing in the player long term, why wait until their value potentially increases and/or another team has an opportunity to nudge their way into the mix and maybe outbid the Steelers. I'd imagine players are more likely to accept extensions before they hit the open market, particularly younger players playing on rookie contracts where they're eager to sign that usually much larger second deal. On occassion, the disadvantage to that may be that a good young player who hasn't had the chance yet to really prove his worth is ruled out as a viable long-term investment but there's not too many examples to point to like that.
A.B.: What do you think of the team's overall approach to free agents? Would you change anything if you were running the front office?
M.B.: I'd sum up the team's overall approach to free agents in one sentence - if you feel you have the best scouting department in the National Football League and are capable of finding talent year in and year out with more consistency than the rest of the league - why dabble too aggressively in a system that's designed for the players' financial benefit rather than trusting in one's ability to fill personnel needs with younger, cheaper guys whenever possible?
Thanks again to Michael for taking the time to answer my questions. You can check out his blog here.
Of course, space restrictions and the thematic approach I took meant that I couldn't fit all the information I received from these guys into my article, so I figured I'd run some of the interviews here as companion pieces. First up, Michael Bean. Michael runs Behind The Steel Curtain, one of the best and most popular Pittsburgh Steelers blogs on the planet. My questions and his responses are below (with minimal edits for grammar and clarity):
Andrew Bucholtz: How would you describe the Steelers' philosophy with regards to signing other teams' free agents? Why has it been successful?
Michael Bean: The Steelers' philosophy with regards to signing other teams' free agents is one of caution and prudence. You'll rarely see the Steelers compete in high-priced bidding wars for high profile free agents like Albert Haynesworth, particularly if the FAs are over 30 years of age or past their peak window physically. What you will see the Steelers do is go after undervalued guys coming off their first contract; guys like Mewelde Moore, Keyaron Fox, etc. In many instances, the Steelers' scouting department simply sees something in other guys that other teams do not, and in others, there's simply situations with other teams' rosters that account for why they're available in the first place. Mewelde Moore is a great example - where's there room for him with superstar Adrian Peterson and highly paid Chester Taylor in front of him on the depth chart [ed note: with the Vikings]?
A.B.: Obviously, the Steelers have let some of their own expensive free agents walk over the years, particularly Alan Faneca and Plaxico Burress. What did you think of those moves at the time, and have your thoughts changed since then?
M.B.: No, the Steelers' front office has a nearly impeccable track record of deciding when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. In the case of Alan Faneca, there's just no way to match an offer that made him the highest paid G in the league. Doesn't make sense any way you carve it up. Same with a guy like Joey Porter, who certainly has proven he has a thing or two left in the tank. But there were James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley ready to step in his place, and at a very, very small fraction of the cost.
A.B.: Does the recent large contract extension given to James Harrison indicate a change in organizational philosophy, or is it just a different situation than with Faneca and Burress? Is he less replaceable?
M.B.: I don't think it represents a change in philosophy, though it's certainly a legitimate question considering Harrison's age. People forget that James Farrior also got a big extension in his 30s, so I don't think their philosophy can be compartmentalized one way or another. In Harrison's case, he's just been the best value in the league the past two years...period. I think that part of this contract represents some 're-payment' of sorts for being so amazing at such a small cost and I think that his unparalleled work ethic makes him a safer bet to stay healthy and productive in the coming years than are most guys his age. Harrison, who's referred to as 'Deebo' by his teammates in homage to the character in the movie Friday, was apparently back in the weight room two days after the Super Bowl, and he was ticked off that none of his teammates were joining him there. Translation? This guy eats, drinks and sleeps football - and as has been relayed on to me from sources closer to the team than me - that's the number-one thing the front office looks for in their determination of who to draft and invest in long-term.
A.B.: Why do the Steelers tend to offer players contract extensions a year before they become free agents? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this system?
M.B.: I think the short answer is that they have typically made up their mind a year before players hit the market whether or not to resign them. If they feel good about investing in the player long term, why wait until their value potentially increases and/or another team has an opportunity to nudge their way into the mix and maybe outbid the Steelers. I'd imagine players are more likely to accept extensions before they hit the open market, particularly younger players playing on rookie contracts where they're eager to sign that usually much larger second deal. On occassion, the disadvantage to that may be that a good young player who hasn't had the chance yet to really prove his worth is ruled out as a viable long-term investment but there's not too many examples to point to like that.
A.B.: What do you think of the team's overall approach to free agents? Would you change anything if you were running the front office?
M.B.: I'd sum up the team's overall approach to free agents in one sentence - if you feel you have the best scouting department in the National Football League and are capable of finding talent year in and year out with more consistency than the rest of the league - why dabble too aggressively in a system that's designed for the players' financial benefit rather than trusting in one's ability to fill personnel needs with younger, cheaper guys whenever possible?
Thanks again to Michael for taking the time to answer my questions. You can check out his blog here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
