John Hart the next O's GM?

[Larry18]

The Orioles are looking to make one hire following Andy MacPhail's departure. They won't bring in a president of baseball operations and a general manager

http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2011/10/just-another-manic-monday.html

IMO, nothing will change. It doesn't matter who they bring in because they don't see the organization in need of change. As far as I'm concerned the problem isn't who the GM is but how the organization is run. One person can't rebuild the infrastructure, hire more/better evaluators & development people, build an international scouting department, and do the normal GM duties that are part of the job on any major league club AND be the team president. The team isn't where it is because Andy McPhail was some horrible GM, it's where it is because the organization is horrible. They need to split the jobs not unify them.

[Skywalker76]

http://www.masnsports.com/school_of_roch/2011/10/just-another-manic-monday.html

IMO, nothing will change. It doesn't matter who they bring in because they don't see the organization in need of change. As far as I'm concerned the problem isn't who the GM is but how the organization is run. One person can't rebuild the infrastructure, hire more/better evaluators & development people, build an international scouting department, and do the normal GM duties that are part of the job on any major league club AND be the team president. The team isn't where it is because Andy McPhail was some horrible GM, it's where it is because the organization is horrible. They need to split the jobs not unify them.

I totally agree with above, which is why I would not mind Hart along with one of the young VP's they interviewed.

[TGO]

I'm not as anti-Hart as most people here seem to be, and said as much back in the days when he seemed to be the most likely candidate. I wouldn't be thrilled by his hiring, but really, I don't think anything this club could do right now would thrill me. Even if they hire one of the "right" guys, we are not going to make what in my view are the "right" moves. This sounds defeatist, but I'd rather be pleasantly surprised. We're going to "go all in," which unfortunately doesn't mean what JTrea thinks it will mean.

In the scenario we're looking at, Hart makes as much sense as anyone, and I just hope that if he's the guy he can put the right people and practices in place to make the organization better.

Also, if Hart is the guy, Showalter will be the GM in 2014 or 2015. Book it.

[tilgaham]

Can somebody articulate to me why they believe that Tony LaCava or Jerry Dipoto would do a better job as our next GM than John Hart? Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I find it kind of humorous that so many posters can go read a couple of articles about a guy like LaCava or Dipoto on the internet and become so passionate about what great GM candidates they are. Why is it so obvious that these guys would be better than Hart, who after all did build a really good team in Cleveland?

This

10chars

[DrungoHazewood]

You guys can have any opinion you like, but I have a hard time disliking a guy with this kind of leadership:

From the ESPN article I linked earlier:

The esprit de corps in Cleveland's front office was forged in the workout room, where Hart and his assistants arrived at 6 a.m. each day and hit the treadmills and stair climbers until they were drenched in sweat. Then they'd shower, go upstairs and log 16-hour days.

Hart loved to assign projects to his young assistants and let them go to town, and he made brainstorming sessions a rite of passage. "Couch time," the young executives called it.

"You could always walk into John's office, plop down on the couch and look up three hours later and say, 'I have to get back to what I was doing,'" Byrnes said. "He liked the camaraderie of the group and encouraged us to be involved and interact with him."

Let me go out on a limb and say MacPhail's front office didn't have some "camaraderie."

Hart was last in Cleveland 11 years ago. Under a different organization, without Peter Angelos and his buddies. He started with the Indians 20 years ago.

I like the attitude and the camaraderie. But I'm going to be skeptical. This isn't 1997 in Cleveland. This is 2012 in Peter Angelos' Baltimore. I'd be happy to be wrong, but when the rumors are that Angelos is passing over the guys on every team's GM wishlist to bring John Hart back to the role for the first time in six years I'm not going to jump up and down and celebrate.

Seems to me he's the guy we get in here that Angelos can be comfortable with, not the guy really at the top of anyone's list.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm not as anti-Hart as most people here seem to be, and said as much back in the days when he seemed to be the most likely candidate. I wouldn't be thrilled by his hiring, but really, I don't think anything this club could do right now would thrill me. Even if they hire one of the "right" guys, we are not going to make what in my view are the "right" moves. This sounds defeatist, but I'd rather be pleasantly surprised. We're going to "go all in," which unfortunately doesn't mean what JTrea thinks it will mean.

Yea, pretty much. You have to think he'll be brought in to patch up an organization in tatters and try to pretend it's on the verge of contention.

I want to know why anyone thinks we'd getting the John Hart of the Cleveland years, as opposed to the John Hart who ran the Rangers from 2002-2005. Under Hart they were sub-500 three of four years, with a peak of one third-place finish in 2004 after trading ARod for Soriano.

In the scenario we're looking at, Hart makes as much sense as anyone, and I just hope that if he's the guy he can put the right people and practices in place to make the organization better.

Also, if Hart is the guy, Showalter will be the GM in 2014 or 2015. Book it.

You really think Buck is going to be a first-time GM at the age of 58 or 59? I guess if Pete's still around anything is possible.

[ShaneDawg85]

Yea, pretty much. You have to think he'll be brought in to patch up an organization in tatters and try to pretend it's on the verge of contention.

I want to know why anyone thinks we'd getting the John Hart of the Cleveland years, as opposed to the John Hart who ran the Rangers from 2002-2005. Under Hart they were sub-500 three of four years, with a peak of one third-place finish in 2004 after trading ARod for Soriano.

You really think Buck is going to be a first-time GM at the age of 58 or 59? I guess if Pete's still around anything is possible.

If anything, we'd probably be getting the Hart from the Cleveland years, which would be what is best for the franchise, but that won't sit well with some folks. We're not spending money folks, so you can forget it, and if we are it's not going to be on the A-Rod's of the world. We don't have Tom Hicks as the owner or his money to throw around. We more or less have the exact opposite as our owner. We need to do what he and his people did in Cleveland, but we can do that without getting a guy like John Hart in here.

[Tony-OH]

Hart was last in Cleveland 11 years ago. Under a different organization, without Peter Angelos and his buddies. He started with the Indians 20 years ago.

I like the attitude and the camaraderie. But I'm going to be skeptical. This isn't 1997 in Cleveland. This is 2012 in Peter Angelos' Baltimore. I'd be happy to be wrong, but when the rumors are that Angelos is passing over the guys on every team's GM wishlist to bring John Hart back to the role for the first time in six years I'm not going to jump up and down and celebrate.

Seems to me he's the guy we get in here that Angelos can be comfortable with, not the guy really at the top of anyone's list.

I'm not arguing against any of that, I'm just saying it's not like this guy is Jim Bowden or something. The reality as we all know is that Angelos is not going to hire some high speed low drag young GM. Hart is a proven leader and mentor to many young GMs so it stands to reason that he could come here and develop a young GM to replace him in 4-5 years.

Hey, for all I know, Angelos will prove us wrong, but I doubt it.

[Stotle]

I'm not arguing against any of that, I'm just saying it's not like this guy is Jim Bowden or something. The reality as we all know is that Angelos is not going to hire some high speed low drag young GM. Hart is a proven leader and mentor to many young GMs so it stands to reason that he could come here and develop a young GM to replace him in 4-5 years.

Hey, for all I know, Angelos will prove us wrong, but I doubt it.

If some of these "up and coming" GM candidates are supposedly highly sought after by other organizations, and highly thought of within the industry, why would Baltimore need to hire Mr. Hart to further groom them? It would seem that much of baseball thinks they were pretty well groomed in their prior and current organizations.

If the point is that Mr. Hart would be hired because he will groom the NEXT "up and coming" GM candidate from within, well, that's a poor reason to put someone in charge. And, why wouldn't he be able to do that in an advisory capacity, where he could focus on advice and solicited instruction, as opposed to worrying about all of the day-to-day intricacies involved in being a GM or PoBO?

[Frobby]

Here is a pretty good article recapping Hart's career in Texas. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2181048 A few highlights/reminders

- Hart was the GM who gave a disastrous contract to FA Chan Ho Park (2001).

- He hired Buck after the 2002 season.

- Hart was the GM who traded ARod to gain payroll flexibility (2004). Texas had their one winning season under Hart following that trade.

- He resigned after the 2005 season, by his choice. He had wanted to resign after the successful 2004 season, but Tom Hicks persuaded him to stay.

- Paul DePodesta, Dan O'Dowd, Mark Shapiro and Jon Daniels all worked under Hart at various times.

[Tony-OH]

If some of these "up and coming" GM candidates are supposedly highly sought after by other organizations, and highly thought of within the industry, why would Baltimore need to hire Mr. Hart to further groom them? It would seem that much of baseball thinks they were pretty well groomed in their prior and current organizations.

If the point is that Mr. Hart would be hired because he will groom the NEXT "up and coming" GM candidate from within, well, that's a poor reason to put someone in charge. And, why wouldn't he be able to do that in an advisory capacity, where he could focus on advice and solicited instruction, as opposed to worrying about all of the day-to-day intricacies involved in being a GM or PoBO?

I never said that would be the point, just the silver lining if Hart is named GM. I just pointed out the fact that he has history of grooming young GMs. Since few of us feel Angelos will ever hire a young, hungry GM, maybe this is the best chance of Hart finding a pupil, developing him as an assistant, and getting Angelos feeling good about him.

Look, I'm just trying to find a silver lining in all of this, not defend the organization. Maybe I just had such low expectations in all of this that some kind of decision is welcome.

[Stotle]

I never said that would be the point, just the silver lining if Hart is named GM. I just pointed out the fact that he has history of grooming young GMs. Since few of us feel Angelos will ever hire a young, hungry GM, maybe this is the best chance of Hart finding a pupil, developing him as an assistant, and getting Angelos feeling good about him.

Look, I'm just trying to find a silver lining in all of those, not defend the organization. Maybe I just had such low expectations in all of this that some kind of decision is welcome.

Understood, and I am certainly not opposed to an organization hiring Mr. Hart.

[TGO]

Here is a pretty good article recapping Hart's career in Texas. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2181048 A few highlights/reminders

- Hart was the GM who gave a disastrous contract to FA Chan Ho Park (2001).

- He hired Buck after the 2002 season.

- Hart was the GM who traded ARod to gain payroll flexibility (2004). Texas had their one winning season under Hart following that trade.

- He resigned after the 2005 season, by his choice. He had wanted to resign after the successful 2004 season, but Tom Hicks persuaded him to stay.

- Paul DePodesta, Dan O'Dowd, Mark Shapiro and Jon Daniels all worked under Hart at various times.

Did he try to convince Showalter to "move upstairs" to GM or was that Hicks?

[Sports Guy]

Here is a pretty good article recapping Hart's career in Texas. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2181048 A few highlights/reminders

- Hart was the GM who gave a disastrous contract to FA Chan Ho Park (2001).- He hired Buck after the 2002 season.

- Hart was the GM who traded ARod to gain payroll flexibility (2004). Texas had their one winning season under Hart following that trade.

- He resigned after the 2005 season, by his choice. He had wanted to resign after the successful 2004 season, but Tom Hicks persuaded him to stay.

- Paul DePodesta, Dan O'Dowd, Mark Shapiro and Jon Daniels all worked under Hart at various times.

And yet, Jtrea considers this to be a positive.

[Malike]

Yea, pretty much. You have to think he'll be brought in to patch up an organization in tatters and try to pretend it's on the verge of contention.

I want to know why anyone thinks we'd getting the John Hart of the Cleveland years, as opposed to the John Hart who ran the Rangers from 2002-2005. Under Hart they were sub-500 three of four years, with a peak of one third-place finish in 2004 after trading ARod for Soriano.

You really think Buck is going to be a first-time GM at the age of 58 or 59? I guess if Pete's still around anything is possible.

We'd probably get the Hart somewhere in the middle. I don't suspect he would be as successful as he was in Cleveland, and I don't suspect he'd be as bad as he was in Texas.