Why do people dislike the Stockstills?

[Frobby]

Crappy farm system..Very little talent produced...Drafting the wrong talent...Not having enough scouts...Not having more cross checkers.

The list goes on and on.

Put it this way..the list of bad is much longer than the list of good.

But right now we are discussing John Stockstill. He doesn't do the drafting, he doesn't decide how many scouts and cross-checkers we have, etc.

The thing that is tricky is that a guy can be good at his job but tangible results aren't obvious right away. Tampa Bay sucked for three years after Andrew Friedman was hired, and now everyone thinks the guy is a genius.

[Chevytrckman3]

For what its worth, and I know this isn't the way to run a successful team, but if I owned a sports franchise, and one of my friends was in that field, I would probably do him a favor and keep him in my organization somewhere as well.

Like I said, its not gonna be a popular post, and I know its just another thing to hate on PA for, but I'd probably do the same thing.

I agree with this. However, if I was as rich as PA, I would make my friends the highest paid janitors in the warehouse. Not have them making key decisions on how the team is run .

[Sports Guy]

But right now we are discussing John Stockstill. He doesn't do the drafting, he doesn't decide how many scouts and cross-checkers we have, etc.

The thing that is tricky is that a guy can be good at his job but tangible results aren't obvious right away. Tampa Bay sucked for three years after Andrew Friedman was hired, and now everyone thinks the guy is a genius.

He oversaw scouting for a while.

The scouting sucked and there wasn't enough of it.

And the ML and pro scouting? How did that stuff work out? How many times did this team look unprepared to face a new starter and things like that?

Some of that blame has to fall on his shoulders.

[Dipper9]

I agree with this. However, if I was as rich as PA, I would make my friends the highest paid janitors in the warehouse. Not have them making key decisions on how the team is run .

That's why I said if they were in that field. Ie, if I had a friend who was in scouting, I would make sure he had a job in my organization in scouting.

[The Rick]

Here's where I stand on the issue: I have no issue with J. Stockstill, but don't agree with the idea of extending someone who's contract didn't expire until December 31st, 2011 and who has a new boss coming in soon. The new boss would have had plenty of time to pick his brain prior to his contract expiring, and if he would have wanted to retain him, he could have.

I don't think it's the end of the world, but I just don't see the need to have done it. As Frobby mentioned, there could be more to it. Maybe Stockstill was being recruited by other organizations, who knows. But let's not act as if they've extended him and said "he'll be our Director of Player Development" in 2012. They've extended him, and have left open the possibility of him being re-assigned. That is the silver lining for me.

[TGO]

Wasn't John the director of PRO scouting? If so, that's not the same as "scouting director." Granted, we've sucked at pro scouting for a long time, too, but let's understand what we're talking about.

I think my opinion can be summarized very simply, and I think a lot of people probably share this opinion: David should be gone. John, I can take or leave.

[Lucky Jim]

He oversaw scouting for a while.

The scouting sucked and there wasn't enough of it.

And the ML and pro scouting? How did that stuff work out? How many times did this team look unprepared to face a new starter and things like that?

Some of that blame has to fall on his shoulders.

This:

Wasn't John the director of PRO scouting? If so, that's not the same as "scouting director." Granted, we've sucked at pro scouting for a long time, too, but let's understand what we're talking about.

I think my opinion can be summarized very simply, and I think a lot of people probably share this opinion: David should be gone. John, I can take or leave.

I tend to agree with this.

[Frobby]

The fact that you can do this on one hand over a long period of time, is pretty poor.

And most of knew what we had in Koji without ever seeing him. I am not giving him credit for doing some incredible scouting to discover a 30+ y/o pitcher, who has been pitching for years, and know that he has great command and control. You could tell that from stats.

You never know how Japanese pitchers will translate over here. The same year we signed Koji, the Braves (not known as a stupid organization) signed Kenshin Kawakami to a 3-year, $22 mm deal. Kawakami was also someone we were considering. I'd say we made a good choice with Koji.

[Sports Guy]

This:

I tend to agree with this.

Yea, that's fine...I honestly had misread the job title at first, so my apologies there.

However, I still don't see much evidence that he did some bang up job in terms of pro scouting. Look at the players the team was bringing in via FA. Look at how we played against other teams.

How can you say he did a good job with all of that? Can you really sit there and say you were impressed?

[Sports Guy]

You never know how Japanese pitchers will translate over here. The same year we signed Koji, the Braves (not known as a stupid organization) signed Kenshin Kawakami to a 3-year, $22 mm deal. Kawakami was also someone we were considering. I'd say we made a good choice with Koji.

You can give credit to that all you want...I'm not.

And remember, the Orioles were after KK as well.

And btw FRobby, remember, the Orioles were the only team that wanted Koji as a starter and many felt he couldn't handle that. So, really, the Orioles were wrong.

[clapdiddy]

This:

I tend to agree with this.

If John Stockstill's goal is to re-institute the "Oriole Way", then I'm more than willing to give him a shot. As you've stated, I don't think he's been in his current position long enough to make a determination on how he fits.

[Lucky Jim]

Yea, that's fine...I honestly had misread the job title at first, so my apologies there.

However, I still don't see much evidence that he did some bang up job in terms of pro scouting. Look at the players the team was bringing in via FA. Look at how we played against other teams.

How can you say he did a good job with all of that? Can you really sit there and say you were impressed?

As I mentioned before, I'm neither impressed nor unimpressed - I have no way of translating the causal relationship between a director of pro scouting and the performance of an aging, under-talented team playing an unbalanced schedule.

But what I asked was, what criticism can you directly apply to JS? And the answer, so far, is none, other than the implication that those poorly-constructed teams were hurt by his work as a pro scouting director.

[Chevytrckman3]

That's why I said if they were in that field. Ie, if I had a friend who was in scouting, I would make sure he had a job in my organization in scouting.

I got that part. However, I know alot of guys in the same field as me, and that's as far as far as the similarities go. They stink at the field of work they are in. You can do a friend a "solid", but the company/team will suffer, if you can't see past the friends part, and that they are actually hindering the business. Example: The Baltimore Orioles.

[Sports Guy]

As I mentioned before, I'm neither impressed nor unimpressed - I have no way of translating the causal relationship between a director of pro scouting and the performance of an aging, under-talented team playing an unbalanced schedule.

But what I asked was, what criticism can you directly apply to JS? And the answer, so far, is none, other than the implication that those poorly-constructed teams were hurt by his work as a pro scouting director.

The criticism is simple...The area in which he was in charge of, wasn't very good.

For whatever reason that was, it doesn't matter...All that matters is that it sucked and since he was the guy in charge of it, the blame falls on him...as it should.

[Lucky Jim]

The criticism is simple...The area in which he was in charge of, wasn't very good.

For whatever reason that was, it doesn't matter...All that matters is that it sucked and since he was the guy in charge of it, the blame falls on him...as it should.

What area? What metric are you using to identify "good" performance? For what period?

I get that the criticism is "simple." The issue is that the "issue" is pretty complicated, and thus "simple" criticism - like that of Crowley - is a poor fit, at best.