If you were going to make a bet in 2011 on three pitcher being real good and real healthy this year Halladay, Hamels and Lee would be in your first four picks most likely. They were three of the top ten pitchers in all of baseball then. And they weren't 8, 9 and 10 either. And one is hurt bd and the team has lost the vast majority of another's starts.

Kendrick as a four and Lannan/Mr. Pettibone as a five is a solid guess as to being pretty good for their roles.

If you were to make a bet a few years ago that Utley and Rollins would agree pretty well I think you would be pretty happy with that bet.

Going with young, hard throwing guys instead of expensive fungible vet relievers is supposed to be a smart move.

If there was anyone on this board in 2009- 2011 saying we should get rid of Halladay and Hamels and Rollins and Utley I'd be surprised.

smitty wrote:I'm guessing that no one who posts here are one of the top 30 executives in their field in the entire world. Just a guess. I'm guessing that even if there is a soul like that here, only some of the skills they have would be transferable. And they would be smoked by real GMs whilst they tried to learn how to be a big league GM. And they would quickly have a team capable of winning 45-50 games a year. And they would be gone long before they get enough experience to be successful. Just a guess.

I think the fact that everyone I have ever read who knows about this sort of thing laughs heartily about the notion of taking some guy off the street, no matter how smart or accomplished and expecting that he can succeed as a big league GM is pretty compelling to me.

Also being a big league GM is pretty much a 24/7 type of gig. I think that eliminates pretty much everyone who posts on a message board with any frequency at all.

- I believe baseball is extremely inefficient in the hiring of GMs. I don't believe many are among the 30 best qualified people to run a major league franchise. It's probably getting better, but it's not close to being an efficient market. Ed Wade ran a franchise. Omar Minaya. Etc.

- I'm glad the extensive writings on "could a non-baseball guy run a baseball franchise" are unanimously opposed to it. I'm sure these voluminous studies are by qualified researchers, not old guys whose jobs depend on the mythology of BASEBALL for a living, i.e. sportswriters.

- God bless those tireless workers. I don't know any decently-compensated "executive" who works 9 to 5, or who expects to.

Shore wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Shore, do you think I can run the Phillies?

No idea who you are, or what your skills are (relevant skills, I mean).

I'm certain you could do it. All we have to do is have someone teach you everything there is to know about baseball in a day or so.

And Shore. You first said you there are multiple posters here who could be a good big league GM. Now you are saying none of us know nearly enough about any poster here to say they can do it.

Make up your mind dude.

Shore wrote:

smitty wrote:I'm guessing that no one who posts here are one of the top 30 executives in their field in the entire world. Just a guess. I'm guessing that even if there is a soul like that here, only some of the skills they have would be transferable. And they would be smoked by real GMs whilst they tried to learn how to be a big league GM. And they would quickly have a team capable of winning 45-50 games a year. And they would be gone long before they get enough experience to be successful. Just a guess.

I think the fact that everyone I have ever read who knows about this sort of thing laughs heartily about the notion of taking some guy off the street, no matter how smart or accomplished and expecting that he can succeed as a big league GM is pretty compelling to me.

Also being a big league GM is pretty much a 24/7 type of gig. I think that eliminates pretty much everyone who posts on a message board with any frequency at all.

- I believe baseball is extremely inefficient in the hiring of GMs. I don't believe many are among the 30 best qualified people to run a major league franchise. It's probably getting better, but it's not close to being an efficient market. Ed Wade ran a franchise. Omar Minaya. Etc.

- I'm glad the extensive writings on "could a non-baseball guy run a baseball franchise" are unanimously opposed to it. I'm sure these voluminous studies are by qualified researchers, not old guys whose jobs depend on the mythology of BASEBALL for a living, i.e. sportswriters.

- God bless those tireless workers. I don't know any decently-compensated "executive" who works 9 to 5, or who expects to.

The guys who write about that stuff are NOT sportswriters. They are the guys who write for BP and places like that. These are guys who have worked in front offices and do studies and use computer numbers and are a LOT closer to big league front offices than anyone here.

I'm pretty sure MLB is much more efficient at hiring GMs than if they took some executive from Mobile Oil or Starbucks and tried to teach them baseball.

Much less getting someone from a message board who is actually the president of GM or something.

smitty wrote:If you were going to make a bet in 2011 on three pitcher being real good and real healthy this year Halladay, Hamels and Lee would be in your first four picks most likely. They were three of the top ten pitchers in all of baseball then. And they weren't 8, 9 and 10 either. And one is hurt bd and the team has lost the vast majority of another's starts.

Kendrick as a four and Lannan/Mr. Pettibone as a five is a solid guess as to being pretty good for their roles.

If you were to make a bet a few years ago that Utley and Rollins would agree pretty well I think you would be pretty happy with that bet.

Going with young, hard throwing guys instead of expensive fungible vet relievers is supposed to be a smart move.

If there was anyone on this board in 2009- 2011 saying we should get rid of Halladay and Hamels and Rollins and Utley I'd be surprised.

The more I think about it, the more I'm falling into the Rube did a real bad job camp and it is not due to what you outlined here. I think a lot of us on here get hung up on what should he have done differently and look at the 25 man roster, and I'm not sure there is a whole lot that he should have done differently there. For a max payroll contending team you have to have the best you can on the 25 man roster, you aren't trading one of your cornerstones in 2011 when you are on track to win 102 games. You just aren't going to do it, maybe you could have messed with the fringes a bit but doing that wasn't going to get you what you need to compete tomorrow so it's really a moot point.
Building a team through free agency is not the way you win anymore (was it ever?), you have to have young talent and you have to develop it to b successful, it's not even a matter of dollars anymore, it's just a matter of production. It is extremely rare for a good productive player to get to free agency at any age, when you look at the impending free agent list it's not full of guys we can't afford, it's full of guys we don't want, their old or flawed or both. Where I think the organization in general failed itself is really in the acquisition of young talent. I know that you can't change where you draft, but baseball was pretty unique where there are multiple avenues to acquire entry level talent, even when talking about the ameture draft. As the organization was making more money and putting more money into the 25 man, they should have been looking for ways to supplement the farm system with young talent, through international signings and over slot draft signings.
When you look at the consistently good teams like the cards, they aren't drafting high and they aren't signing huge FA's, they are building a core group and then consistently turning over their role players with cheap guys from their system who step in and contribute.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I don't hate anyone's posts, just subject to my own kneejerk reactions when I read a thread someone bumped just to say "See! I hated Rube in 2009" with a little "I miss Ed Wade" mixed in for flavor

Actually I bumped the thread because I got a new comment on the Hitler video. This is the thread where I initially posted it and where it was initially discussed. Other posters started in with other comments such as how right they were and how much they missed Ed Wade. Maybe I'm on Housh's enemy list.

nothing but peace and serenity here

smitty wrote:

Shore wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Shore, do you think I can run the Phillies?

No idea who you are, or what your skills are (relevant skills, I mean).

I'm certain you could do it. All we have to do is have someone teach you everything there is to know about baseball in a day or so.

And Shore. You first said you there are multiple posters here who could be a good big league GM. Now you are saying none of us know nearly enough about any poster here to say they can do it.

Make up your mind dude.

My mind is made up.

Just like we don't know if Utley or Howard or Rollins or Halladay or Ruiz or whomever will get hurt, we can be pretty sure that AT LEAST one or two 33 to 36 year olds will get hurt during the year.

I don't know WHICH of our "thirty-something to sixty-something males who follow baseball rather extensively and can formulate a thought into words reasonably well on a recurring basis" have experience and talent at management, executive management, leadership, finance, marketing, development or whatever would be their calling card, but I'm comfortably sure that there are some.

Glad we resolved that.

Bill McNeal wrote:

smitty wrote:If you were going to make a bet in 2011 on three pitcher being real good and real healthy this year Halladay, Hamels and Lee would be in your first four picks most likely. They were three of the top ten pitchers in all of baseball then. And they weren't 8, 9 and 10 either. And one is hurt bd and the team has lost the vast majority of another's starts.

Kendrick as a four and Lannan/Mr. Pettibone as a five is a solid guess as to being pretty good for their roles.

If you were to make a bet a few years ago that Utley and Rollins would agree pretty well I think you would be pretty happy with that bet.

Going with young, hard throwing guys instead of expensive fungible vet relievers is supposed to be a smart move.

If there was anyone on this board in 2009- 2011 saying we should get rid of Halladay and Hamels and Rollins and Utley I'd be surprised.

The more I think about it, the more I'm falling into the Rube did a real bad job camp and it is not due to what you outlined here. I think a lot of us on here get hung up on what should he have done differently and look at the 25 man roster, and I'm not sure there is a whole lot that he should have done differently there. For a max payroll contending team you have to have the best you can on the 25 man roster, you aren't trading one of your cornerstones in 2011 when you are on track to win 102 games. You just aren't going to do it, maybe you could have messed with the fringes a bit but doing that wasn't going to get you what you need to compete tomorrow so it's really a moot point.
Building a team through free agency is not the way you win anymore (was it ever?), you have to have young talent and you have to develop it to b successful, it's not even a matter of dollars anymore, it's just a matter of production. It is extremely rare for a good productive player to get to free agency at any age, when you look at the impending free agent list it's not full of guys we can't afford, it's full of guys we don't want, their old or flawed or both. Where I think the organization in general failed itself is really in the acquisition of young talent. I know that you can't change where you draft, but baseball was pretty unique where there are multiple avenues to acquire entry level talent, even when talking about the ameture draft. As the organization was making more money and putting more money into the 25 man, they should have been looking for ways to supplement the farm system with young talent, through international signings and over slot draft signings.
When you look at the consistently good teams like the cards, they aren't drafting high and they aren't signing huge FA's, they are building a core group and then consistently turning over their role players with cheap guys from their system who step in and contribute.

You make good points. Although I will say that many teams' top ten prospect lists are littered with guys we drafted and developed to a certain extent. We used those guys to get Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee and Roy Oswalt and Hunter Pence (Booooooo. But really, he is having another pretty good year) and guys like that.

Again, the minor league teams are lousy with international guys. Our number one prospect is an international signing. Our number 3 prospect is an international signing.

The one area I wholeheartedly agree we have done crappy at is signing the real good Cuban hitters and Japanese and Korean pitchers. (That said, Cespedes is already showing signs of decline. -- but who knows, he may be Micky Mantle plus Babe Ruth times Willie Mays in the second half).

The Cardinals are interesting. I'm pretty sure their farm system was supposed to be lousy a few years ago. A bunch of their young guys who are doing well in the big leagues were not heralded as great prospects. Have they been really good or just kinda lucky? A little of both I suspect but I lean towards the really good side a bit more.

I don't know that the Cards have been big players on the international market. Or that they have made a lot of over slot draft picks.

I don't think Amaro is a great GM or even a good one. He has some very strong characteristics. He was not afraid to trade prospects to get players he wanted. Halladay, Lee, Oswalt and Pence. He likes cost certainty. He isn't patient in contract negotiations at times-- Madson and others.

These strong characteristics led us to a few years of great success. But they also have resulted in the not so hot position we are in today. It happens. Baseball is a funny game. What works for a while in one place doesn't work all the time. What works in one place doesn't work in another.

I guess there is a view point that a BSG poster who we really don't know anything about but is a high powered executive but who posts on here a lot (Calvin Ball maybe, we don't REALLY know him) when he's not moving and shaking things up in the business world 20 hours a day could have had just as much success as Amaro did. Because it isn't really all that hard.

phdave wrote:Glad we resolved that.

Indeed. I'm also sure that one of our posters could be Miss America next year. And also the Pope.

I'm sure of it.

That should be good enough.

Baseball is no different than any other industry at the management level and I think the argument that it isn't is frankly pretty silly. What a non-baseball-lifer would miss is the ability to easily spot talent, although (1) that is an acquired skill not an innate skill and (2) a great manager would surround himself with the right talent evaluators. The idea that Amaro or Steve Phillips of Bill Bavasi or even some decent GMs would be better than Jack Welch or Lou Palmisano is, in my view, ridiculous.

Shore wrote:

smitty wrote:

Shore wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Shore, do you think I can run the Phillies?

No idea who you are, or what your skills are (relevant skills, I mean).

I'm certain you could do it. All we have to do is have someone teach you everything there is to know about baseball in a day or so.

And Shore. You first said you there are multiple posters here who could be a good big league GM. Now you are saying none of us know nearly enough about any poster here to say they can do it.

Make up your mind dude.

My mind is made up.

Just like we don't know if Utley or Howard or Rollins or Halladay or Ruiz or whomever will get hurt, we can be pretty sure that AT LEAST one or two 33 to 36 year olds will get hurt during the year.

I don't know WHICH of our "thirty-something to sixty-something males who follow baseball rather extensively and can formulate a thought into words reasonably well on a recurring basis" have experience and talent at management, executive management, leadership, finance, marketing, development or whatever would be their calling card, but I'm comfortably sure that there are some.

Why not the 20-somethings? I've won multiple championships on OOTP, so I assume I'm just as qualified.

Seriously, this is a ridiculous notion. You say in one post that these are elite, billion dollar organizations, and then say without knowing anyone on this boards qualifications, say somebody here could run one.

It's like saying that if I've successfully managed a restaurant, I'm now qualified to run Apple.

Trent Steele wrote:Baseball is no different than any other industry at the management level and I think the argument that it isn't is frankly pretty silly. What a non-baseball-lifer would miss is the ability to easily spot talent, although (1) that is an acquired skill not an innate skill and (2) a great manager would surround himself with the right talent evaluators. The idea that Amaro or Steve Phillips of Bill Bavasi or even some decent GMs would be better than Jack Welch or Lou Palmisano is, in my view, ridiculous.

I think that's kinda the point though, isn't it? Even the most elite executive (Jack Welch is an excellent example) make errors. Nobody runs a perfect business. No matter what the business is, GM's are going to screw up.

smitty wrote:

phdave wrote:Glad we resolved that.

Indeed. I'm also sure that one of our posters could be Miss America next year. And also the Pope.

I'm sure of it.

That should be good enough.

I think beezer'd be an awesome pope.

But, regardless, this is ANOTHER smitty straw-man post. If there were 800+ registered teenage girls here, and the board was about fitness and makeup and fashion, but kept the same moronic politics thread, I'm sure we'd have a potential Miss America in the fold.

I'm sure you've read about guys that were supposed to be good but weren't, and that things might be alright unless they're not, and that other team did that once and it backfired, and remember that poster loved that guy who never panned out, and, shucks, these big league GMs would eat any of us for breakfast, so never mind.

mcare89 wrote:

Shore wrote:

smitty wrote:

Shore wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote:Shore, do you think I can run the Phillies?

No idea who you are, or what your skills are (relevant skills, I mean).

I'm certain you could do it. All we have to do is have someone teach you everything there is to know about baseball in a day or so.

And Shore. You first said you there are multiple posters here who could be a good big league GM. Now you are saying none of us know nearly enough about any poster here to say they can do it.

Make up your mind dude.

My mind is made up.

Just like we don't know if Utley or Howard or Rollins or Halladay or Ruiz or whomever will get hurt, we can be pretty sure that AT LEAST one or two 33 to 36 year olds will get hurt during the year.

I don't know WHICH of our "thirty-something to sixty-something males who follow baseball rather extensively and can formulate a thought into words reasonably well on a recurring basis" have experience and talent at management, executive management, leadership, finance, marketing, development or whatever would be their calling card, but I'm comfortably sure that there are some.

Why not the 20-somethings? I've won multiple championships on OOTP, so I assume I'm just as qualified.

Seriously, this is a ridiculous notion. You say in one post that these are elite, billion dollar organizations, and then say without knowing anyone on this boards qualifications, say somebody here could run one.

It's like saying that if I've successfully managed a restaurant, I'm now qualified to run Apple.

I'm saying they are elite billion dollar organizations that SHOULD be much more demanding of their executives. But they are not. And they are not efficient at identifying management. As it stands, several posters here could, IMO, do AT LEAST AS WELL as the clowns that have been put in charge in many situations. Including ours.

I don't care about Strat-o-matic or OOTP experience. I'm talking about business. Management. Identifying those areas where your organization is elite, and maximizing the value of those assets. Identifying those areas where you suck, and calling a spade a spade, and fixing it. Hiring WELL. Developing. Managing people. Managing assets. Learning from other organizations where you can. MEASURING. Having a fucking plan, that everyone in the organization knows, because it's pounded into their head.

I think there's some truth to the idea that "management is management," though there's a limit. Where I think Shore and McNeal and others are correct is that Amaro failed--and more importantly, continues to fail--in what's sometimes referred to as SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). To do that well might not require having played, or even having worked in an FO.

Just talking about 2013, amaro doesn't seem to grasp that the team's sole remaining competitive advantage is its big payroll... so he'll fail to take on salary for better prospect return. Today's problem is the fruit of yesterday's opportunity missed: he needs the prospects because he didn't see the opportunity of spending more in the draft and internationally back when the rules enabled that without consequences. I could go on: he recognized the weakness of his aging offense too late (2011), then was foolish in trying to address it (ever since).

Managers have to be egotistical enough to pursue their chosen course with total commitment, yet egoless enough to change when the facts dictate doing so. That means recognizing sunk costs and not throwing good money after bad. If its true that Amaro won't trade Papelbon--that he's going to lock himself into the declining years of a fastball reliever who's not getting any cheaper--it will confirm, for anyone who still doubts, that his analytical capacity is really lacking.

I think if smitty has a point, it's that functioning as a baseball GM probably entails more than content knowledge: it's trust among peers, bosses and subordinates, and an understanding of the culture of the game informed by experience. Jack Welch might be a great owner/boss of a GM; I wouldn't want him making trades or draft picks.

Shore wrote:

smitty wrote:

phdave wrote:Glad we resolved that.

Indeed. I'm also sure that one of our posters could be Miss America next year. And also the Pope.

I'm sure of it.

That should be good enough.

I think beezer'd be an awesome pope.

But, regardless, this is ANOTHER smitty straw-man post. If there were 800+ registered teenage girls here, and the board was about fitness and makeup and fashion, but kept the same moronic politics thread, I'm sure we'd have a potential Miss America in the fold.

I'm sure you've read about guys that were supposed to be good but weren't, and that things might be alright unless they're not, and that other team did that once and it backfired, and remember that poster loved that guy who never panned out, and, shucks, these big league GMs would eat any of us for breakfast, so never mind.

Lol Beezer isn't even Catholic.

And this isn't a straw man but a joke and a damn funny one.

The guys who actually DO know about this kind of stuff because they are familiar with big league organizations and who do research and studies and who know a lot about baseball and stuff like that know that real big league GMs would eat anyone who posts here's lunch.

Our arm chair GMs have made many, many crappy trade and FA signing proposals over the years. When presented with that you changed the argument and now claim we have a mystery poster out there who is a master of the universe but still has time to post stuff here and would be a good GM. Not just one but multiple people.

I find that very hard to believe.

I could be wrong though.

mcare89 wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Baseball is no different than any other industry at the management level and I think the argument that it isn't is frankly pretty silly. What a non-baseball-lifer would miss is the ability to easily spot talent, although (1) that is an acquired skill not an innate skill and (2) a great manager would surround himself with the right talent evaluators. The idea that Amaro or Steve Phillips of Bill Bavasi or even some decent GMs would be better than Jack Welch or Lou Palmisano is, in my view, ridiculous.

I think that's kinda the point though, isn't it? Even the most elite executive (Jack Welch is an excellent example) make errors. Nobody runs a perfect business. No matter what the business is, GM's are going to screw up.

I don't think those two guys post here either.

steagles was actually Steve Phillips so