Breaking Down the Trading Madness
Friday, August 7, 2009

We received a personal invitation to join Calzones GM Matt Higgins for lunch Tuesday at Danny's Restaurant on San Bernardo Avenue.  We took him up on the offer, and soon found that he was eager to talk directly to the fans about the direction of the club.

CC: Thanks for inviting me today.

MH: Thanks for agreeing to join me.  We are eager to let the fans know what direction the club is headed in, and we felt a direct interview with Calzones Corner might be the best way to reach our fan base.

CC: Well, thanks Matt.  Let's get started shall we?  First, you have clearly been one of the league's most active general managers.  You are known, at least in these parts, as “Trader Matt”.  Can you answer your critics, some of whom question whether you even have a plan?

MH: What the fans and the critics need to understand is that the franchise is not even three seasons old yet.  We came into a new league with many challenges and have faced a constantly changing landscape.  We admit mistakes in shaping this franchise, especially with our all out attempt to win in our first season.  We drafted poorly in the inaugural draft, leaving ourselves very short in the pitching department.  We had to make trades right from the beginning in order to rectify that issue.  Later in the season we were in serious contention and made the decision to take on payroll for the stretch run.  Little did we realize how adversely that would affect us down the road.

We really miscalculated how easy it would be to get out from under that debt.  We compounded that mistake by trades during our second season which added to our debt even further.  We looked around the league and saw a problem with several small market teams saddled with bad contracts, and where we could we attempted to help move those contracts, taking on salary in the process.  At the time, we were worried about the competitive balance of the league.  We felt that for such a young league, it was important that all of our franchises have a chance at financial solvency in the near future, to assure the fans around the league that, unlike MLB, we would be around for years to come.

We knew that we could move any contract given the right conditions, so we took what we could from teams that were desperate.  In most cases we got something in the deal to make it worth our while, but we think at the times we made those deals we really helped the other teams involved gain some financial flexibility.  But we were also still making deals to try to compete, and we bit off more than we could chew.  We are fortunate that we have a great fan base and a good size market, so we could absorb losses better than most.  But still, we had our work cut out for us.

If anything, we have learned to adapt.  We won't say there were not some miscalculations, because there were.  And there were some changes in the landscape that we were not expecting.  Over the course of last winter, we began shedding large salaries but tried to keep together a core that we could build around for the future.  Our goal was to eliminate our debt in one season and then rebuild through free agency next winter.

But we may have miscalculated.  The start of revenue sharing (Ed. Note: The PEBA will begin employing revenue sharing in 2010) has left us with an open question as to whether or not our debt will be completely eliminated this year.  We ran the numbers a thousand times and we had a thousand different answers.  In the end, we calculate we will eliminate most of the debt but not quite all.  Our best guess is we will fall three to four million short, but considering a twenty million dollar debt at the beginning of the season, we have made great progress.

But coming up short on the debt issue was leaving us questioning whether or not we could begin the retooling process this next offseason.  The second key issue to us was whether or not Will Thomas would exercise his player option for 2010.  We just don't know, and eleven million makes a huge difference.

So we evaluated our situation and came to the conclusion that the best course of action for the Calzones would be to set our sights on 2011.  But we didn't want to sit idly by and not do anything for two full seasons.  We know that at the PEBA level, 2009 and 2010 are lost.  But that doesn't mean we sit on our hands and wait for things to happen.  So we decided that the best course of action at this time was to concentrate our efforts on two areas: finish eliminating the debt and rebuilding our farm system.

CC: Despite the reasons mentioned for your frenetic trading pace, many critics continue to insist you simply have no plan.  What do you say to those critics?

MH: I say “Eat My Shorts”.  Seriously, we have worked in a challenging environment.  This was all new ground to us at the beginning.  We made many mistakes but did what we felt we had to do at the time.  As I say, the landscape changes and you have to keep up with that.  You constantly evaluate and reevaluate.  If you feel you have made a miscalculation, you regroup and come up with a new course of action.  That is what we have done.  I challenge anyone to find an easy way to overcome a twenty million dollar debt, and that is what we are attempting to do.  It's not easy.

CC: But why the nearly complete gutting of the team this season?  Why not keep the core players and that young bullpen together?

MH: When you go into the trade market, your best chips are your good, young, cheap players.  Instead of sitting idly by waiting for our debt to go away, we decided we were going to actively deal away as much as possible, and at the same time get as much young talent back in return.  When the debt is cleared, sure, we can turn to free agency.  But we wanted to rebuild the farm system as well.  If we wanted talented young prospects, we were going to get the best return by giving up talented young players.  And we are proud of the level of talent we acquired in those deals; we certainly feel that our farm system is in the top five or six in the league at this point, talent-wise.

You have to remember, we are going to be in a unique position going forward.  When our debt is cleared, we still have a very good revenue stream.  We can make real strides in the free agent market in a very short period of time.  In the meantime, we also have good, young talent developing in the minors.  While we may struggle at the PEBA level for a couple of seasons, when the turnaround comes we are going to be in the position of having the best of both worlds.  Money to spend and good young prospects coming along.

CC: Tell us a little about how you make a trade happen?

MH: It's not rocket science.  But you have to pay attention and have a clear goal with each deal you make.  We make a ritual of examining every player who is mentioned as being on the trade block.  We look at the possibilities.  Any deal can be done, even contracts that seem unmovable.  Sometimes you just have to be creative.

When you target a player, you have a value in mind and you begin negotiating.  If you’re in doubt as to the value, sometimes you have to feel out the other GM to see where he thinks the price should be set, then work from there.  On the other hand, when you’re dealing a player you have a price in mind but you try to let the market come to you as best you can in order to see who is willing to pay what price.

CC: Do you have deals you regret having made?

MH: The Octávio Pexego deal with Gloucester Fishermen.  We loved Pexago, we overpaid for him, and we couldn't afford to keep him.  We wish to not speak any further on the matter.

CC: Do you have deals you are especially proud of?

MH: Another deal with Gloucester Fishermen, with their first ownership group, I think.  Or was it the second?  I forget. (Ed. Note: The deal came during the Gordon Breidenbach regime, the third of five ownership groups to control the team originally known as the New York Liberty, and later the New York CBGB)  But anyway, they came after Harley Robertson and offered about 3 players for him.  One was Bobby; the other two names escape me at the moment.  They were willing to overpay for Robertson.  Well, we liked Robertson at the time – we thought he would be something special – but even at that, what Gloucester was offering was too good to pass up.  But we didn't want all three players.  Just Wright.  At the time, we felt that was fair value.  We thought to take their offer of all three players would have been bad form.  We would have been clearly robbing them blind, and that's not a precedent we wanted to set.  We made the deal we thought was fair.  We countered with an offer that removed the other two players from the deal, and just took Wright.  As things worked out, Wright has gone on to become a star and Robertson is struggling in the minors.  But at the time neither had a track record; they both scouted well, and we believed the deal to be fair.

CC: That's interesting.  Why would you not want to take a deal that could potentially be of great benefit and offer a lesser deal?

MH: You have to understand.  In this business, your reputation is important.  If you’re in this for the long haul, your reputation is a commodity you can't live without.  We go into every negotiation attempting to make the best deal for our team, but we try to make sure that the deal has benefit for both teams.  It has to be as fair as possible.  You want to be able to do business with these people in the future, so you don't rob them blind.  You negotiate, you get the best deal possible but you don't screw someone over.  When you earn a reputation as someone who is only out to get the better end of the bargain at any cost, in the end it will cost you.  People get wise to your modus operandi and won't deal with you.

CC: Are there teams you personally won't deal with?

MH: I won't go so far as to say there are teams I won't deal with, but there are teams well down on my list that I generally just avoid for one reason or another.

CC: Can you name the teams and why?

MH: I won't name names.  They probably know who they are.  There are a couple of teams who are never willing to give up anything of value.  They want your good players but refuse to put their good prospects on the board.  There are some teams who just won't even consider dealing their prospect, and that's fine, but we stop asking.  There are others who will target your players but offer three players I could just as easily replace from the waiver wire, thinking they can dazzle us with numbers.  When I ask about a good prospect that I feel would be of equal value, they refuse to even consider.  Then there are other teams who always want to expand the deal into some huge 15-player blockbuster – but again, only if they feel they can get the better end of it.  It just becomes too big a hassle to deal with teams that only want to try pull the wool over your eyes.

Then there are other reasons for not being too eager to deal with teams, such as when they publicly try to devalue players you are trying to deal.  We feel that once a team crosses a certain line, there is not much need to deal with that team in the future.  We try to retain our own dignity by not breaching the unspoken baseball etiquette of not hindering another team’s ability to move a player, and we don't retaliate publicly.  But future negotiations with that team remain unlikely to be pursued by us.

Another reason for not negotiating with a team is when their demands are so far off the board that fair value is just too far out of reach.  For instance, we recently inquired with a number of teams, looking at some older journeymen types in their organizations that might help us fill some holes for a season or two.  One such inquiry was responded to with a demand for good young pitching prospects.  For a minor league outfielder in his 30s?  A young pitching prospect?  There's just nothing to work with there, the other owner is obviously delusional about the value of minor leaguers who are past their prime.

CC: Are there teams you particularly enjoy dealing with?  You have made a number of deals with Tempe Knights over the years, as well as West Virginia Coal Sox.

MH: Oh, there are many teams we like dealing with for a number of reasons.  The Coal Sox are always good to negotiate with; we can usually find some common ground and find a way to make it a win-win for both parties.  Not every negotiation works out, but it's been a good relationship there.  The Canton Longshoremen are another team we like dealing with.  We don't always agree on value and aren’t able to match up our needs every time, but the talks are always good.  We had very good negotiations with Florida Featherheads recently.  The Kalamazoo Badgers were another team we had a good exchange of ideas with; we just couldn't match up quite right.  We pulled the big deal with Charleston Statesmen and have enjoyed negotiations with them as well.  The Manchester Maulers has been a good trade partner also.

CC: Can you tell us what direction the team might head in the offseason?

MH: Well, most of that is still up in the air.  We have to look at two key factors: whether our debt is eliminated this year, and whether Will Thomas exercises that option.  Most likely, we do some bargain hunting in the offseason.  We would like to make a big splash and get a name-brand player, but we are still evaluating whether or not we can go that route.  We know we have some payroll flexibility for next season, but we will be in much better shape after next season.  Once the contracts of Thomas and Navarro are off the books, we will be in great shape.  If I were to tell you what I think will happen this offseason, I would say we bargain hunt.  We’ll look for some guys who we can sign to short term contracts and fill some holes for a season or two.  After next season we will have greater flexibility and we will also have a better idea of what might be coming out of our farm system in the near future.

CC: What might you be looking for in the bargain bin this offseason?

MH: We need a right handed bat to platoon with Fernando Garza at one of the corner outfield spots.  We need one or two mediocre infielders.  And a whole lot of cheap pitching.  And hopefully that will be enough to keep us from losing 100 games for a second season in a row.

CC: In addition to the influx of talent at the minor league level during the recent purge, you have also set the team up nicely for next year’s draft by acquiring some very good draft picks.  Any chance you will tip your hand as to what direction the team might go in next year’s draft?

MH: It's one of the worst kept secrets in the PEBA.  We'll be looking to build up our pitching.  We had 12 selections in the top 7 rounds last year and we mostly filled some holes in our organization at everyday positions.  We feel real good about what we accomplished there, and we feel our depth in the catching and in the infield is as good as any system in the PEBA.  We also brought in some nice young outfielders and we like our depth there, even if we lack any real standout talents.  So pitching will be the name of the game for us in the next draft.  We have 7 selections in the first 4 rounds and we will be concentrating heavily on pitching.  We may find it hard to pass up on a stud outfielder if one should fall to us in the first round, but more than likely we hammer away at the pitching almost exclusively on the first day of the draft.

CC: Thanks for your time, Matt.  Lunch was a pleasure, and you have certainly given me plenty to write about.

MH: Thank you for coming.  And tell the fans to keep the faith and keep coming out to the ballpark.