Jump to content

Ed Rogers attempts a Coup D'etat


wildcard

Recommended Posts

What Ed Rogers, Chairman of the Toronto Blue Jay is attempting has never been done before. Never has a major league baseball team stolen a successful GM from another team and at the same time put a division champion in the same division at a disadvantage by leaving them without a GM. Its never happen that I can find.

Rogers motive is fairly transparent. The Blue Jays have not been to the playoffs in 22 years. Their GM Alex Anthopoulos is in the final year of his contract. Either he wins or he is gone. He has finished 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th and 3rd. The odd are not with him.

The ploy of a promotion of Dan Duquette is a ruse. Yes, he may get a President's title but titles in baseball don't mean much. Dan will likely become the President and GM in waiting. If Anthopoulos fails to make the playoff in 2015 and Dan is the new Blue Jays GM. While Peter Angelos is being made out to be the bad guy for keeping Dan from a promotion the truth is that its likely a lateral move in disguise.

Some may bring up Theo Epstein's move from Boston to Chicago with one year left on his contract. But, in fact, its nothing like what Rogers is trying to pull off. Epstein was in a power struggle with President Larry Lucchino in Boston and they were glad to see Epstein go. The Red Sox granted permission for Epstein to interview. Ben Cherington was the Assistant GM and ready to be promoted in Boston. Not at all like what is happening with Duquette. There is no one ready to take Dan's job. No one with the GM experience that knows the Orioles.

Most of the time when a GM moves from one team to another its because he has failed in his current job. Walt Jocketty was let go from the Cards before he went to the Reds. Sandy Alderson spent time in the Commissioner's office between move from the A's to the Padres to the Mets. You don't find successful GMs stolen from a team the way this is being attempted.

So lets call this what it is. A Heist. An Attempted Robbery of a division rival that is meant to disadvantage them. And the only thing that stands in the way of it being successful in Peter Angelos and his four year contract with Dan. I hope he prevails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://andrewstoeten.com/2015/01/15/edward-rogers-fingerprints-continue-to-be-seen-on-the-duquette-situation/

Nope, it’s the scion of the Rogers family, who according to an October Toronto Life cover story has been forced out of the day-to-day operations of the business that bears his name since Laurence has taken over. The man who, according to Bob Elliott, falsely told players that money would be available at the trade deadline if they were in it, and who Elliott says “basically owns the team.”
Edward Rogers and his good friend Roger Rai, a “sports consultant” to the Rogers empire, met with New York Yankees president Randy Levine in New York looking for suggestions as to who to hire as the next president.

Levine gave the two friends from their University of Western Ontario days, a pair of names: Kenny Williams of the Chicago White Sox and Duquette.

They asked the president of the Yankees to help them pick the new president of a club that’s going to compete directly with the Yankees???
Should he be making the most fundamental baseball decision possible for the club, especially when there certainly doesn’t appear to be a whole lot of input from the many actual baseball people in his (father’s former) company’s employ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1plPyJdXKIY?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mount up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's good to see the BJ management finally coming in for some (well earned) negative press in this situation. Best outcome would be Dan staying in B'more and Rogers taking over the mantle from Angelos as "worst owner in sports."

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Yeah, but the Rangers had one of the best performing lineups in baseball throughout the playoffs. The Orioles consistently go MIA on offense. Very Inconsistent. If you have a subpar bullpen, you need an offense that can score enough to bail them out. (And vica versa).
    • Tarrasco definitely thought he was catching it, you can tell by his reaction.
    • Not sure about that.  The ball is coming almost straight down at that point.   Tarascó doesn’t even think he has to jump to catch it.
    • Of course the outcome of the play should matter, and in both the videos you linked, the outcome was affected.  And a facemask call is not comparable, since that rule exists due to player safety.
    • Reminds me of one of my son's games when he was 12.  The other team had bases loaded with 1 out and the next batter hit a pretty routine pop up.  The umpires invoked the infield fly rule.  Of course, our Shortstop dropped the pop up (as 12 year olds sometimes do)...   Some of the baserunners thought they then had to try to advance and started running.  One of the runners thought it was a dead ball and he should walk back to the bag. There were runners running in all different directions, some forwards, some backwards... Then the infielders started throwing the ball away during the ensuing rundowns...   I think they managed to finally get a guy out at home ending that inning...   It was sheer pandemonium.  The umpires were laughing...
    • No way Tarrasco was getting that ball.  But I do think it might have hit the top of the fence for an extra-base hit and not an HR...
    • Are you looking for an infield fly runner's interference?  Because as far as I know, it's been 12 years since this exact situation was called.  This is the play that caused the rule to be changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJu3RL8CV_8   They let the runner bat again and called the 1st base runner out in this case, and then in the offseason clarified the rule to say that both the runner and the batter are out.  But in this case the runner's interference was fairly substantial direct contact.   If you're talking about runners interference in general, on this play Kieboom didn't touch the runner and it was called runner's interference.   https://www.mlb.com/video/yadier-molina-grounds-into-a-force-out-fielded-by-shortstop-carter-kieboom-marcell-ozuna-out-at-3rd-jose-martinez-to-2nd-yadier-molina-to-1st?q=5%2F1%2F2019 stl vs was&cp=CMS_FIRST&qt=FREETEXT&p=3   The outcome of the play shouldn't really matter.  If you commit a face mask in football, and the guy whose face mask you grabbed gets a sack-fumble and recovers, you still get the ball and you get 15 yards.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...