SI: Manfred Insists on More Minority Management

[Redskins Rick]

Imagine the dispute over MASN with Lerner and Angelos. That must be a fun time. Grumpy Old men but with tons of money.

These are some words overheard and texted Monday night from people in the game regarding the Nationals:

Laughingstock.

They don?t know what they're doing.

Dumpster fire.

All about money.

The Nationals decided on Black last Wednesday. Negotiations commenced. The first offer the Nationals made Black, a manager fresh off an eight-year stint with the San Diego Padres, would have guaranteed him $1.6 million for one season. It left Black deeply offended, according to one person familiar with the situation. In the end, the Lerners would not exceed an offer of two years with multiple team options. By Saturday, talks had crumbled. They didn't get their man, because they insulted him.

This season, the Lerners shelled out $165 million in payroll for players, sixth in the majors. Good for them. They still lack an understanding of how to treat people within their industry. Consider how out of touch offering Black two years on short money is. Black would have had to bring a whole staff, and he likely wanted to bring along confidant Rick Renteria as his bench coach. Renteria, as a former big league manager, would have garnered a higher salary than a typical bench coach. Does it sound as though the Lerners would realize that? Like they have any handle on standard practices?

Within baseball, there existed a belief that the Lerners did not understand how to pay managers or deal with certain employees. At a stage when they should know better, it has exploded into full public view. The end of the season revealed top-down dysfunction. This makes it worse. This is a mess. What must Baker have thought as he mulled this offer?

The low-ball offer to Black is hardly an isolated episode, though it is one of the most high-profile. The Lerners just completed their 10th season of ownership. Back in 2006 and 07, when they questioned every purchase and decision from extra bats for players to stopwatches for minor league coaches, to text messaging capabilities for the cellphones of front-office members, to requiring no fewer than eight sets of initials on every expense report these symptoms were considered growing pains. Eventually, most inside the organization specifically and the sport broadly assumed, the family and its top managers would learn that running a baseball team isn't like running a mall, in part because the major leagues have 29 other malls willing to pay for top talent.

The Nationals publicly say they want to be an industry standard. But by Tuesday morning, it was fair to question what industry standard-bearers would find them desirable employers. Baker is an accomplished manager, but he had been out of the game for two seasons and, at age 66, needed one last shot.

For example, the recently impoverished Mets ownership, their wealth damaged by the Bernie Madoff investment scandal, still managed to back General Manager Sandy Alderson when he wanted to add key players, such as Yoenis Cespedes, at the July 31 trade deadline. In contrast, the Nats were paralyzed in pursuing left-handed bat (and Gold Glove winner) Gerardo Parra to improve their injured lineup. Why wouldn’t the Nats increase payroll in midseason Because that’s not how “we” do it.

Maybe they’ll learn to be more flexible by next July 31 — a year late.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/window-into-nationals-organization-offers-not-an-entirely-pleasant-picture/2015/11/03/8a111fbc-8260-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html?tid=pm_sports_pop_b

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/11/03/after-bud-black-negotiations-leave-the-nationals-shifting-to-dusty-baker-the-lerner-family-has-a-fiasco-on-its-hands/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/lerners-got-rich-doing-it-their-way-this-time-it-cost-the-nationals-a-manager/2015/11/03/833487e6-8261-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html

You make lots of good points.

But, the Nats did try and improve mid season, when they traded for Paps.

True, it was a bad deal, but you can't fault them for not improving during the mid-season, when they pulled the trigger on a major payroll increasing deal.

[Nigel Tufnel]

They like to spend just fine. Their payroll will come down some but they shelled out a truckload to Scherzer last year.

Just noting that the Nats wanted to trade for Parra at the deadline, but the Lerners wouldn't approve the increase in payroll.

[Tx Oriole]

"Better looking numbers" are symbolism over substance. There, I said it. What is the definition of what "better looking numbers" are? Does three cut it? Five? Ten?

I understand the wrongs of the past, but I don't believe there is an owner today that wouldn't hire a minority candidate. The Calvin Griffiths are dead and excoriated decades ago. BTW, Mr. Manfred, team ownership has been a far more exclusive club than the field manager. The focus should be getting more minorities playing the game and into the stands.

I look forward to the day when we don't care what the "better looking numbers" are because they have become irrelevant. On that day, we will stop putting people into categories and simply focus on who is the most qualified for the job.

I agree.

[Can_of_corn]

You make lots of good points.

But, the Nats did try and improve mid season, when they traded for Paps.

True, it was a bad deal, but you can't fault them for not improving during the mid-season, when they pulled the trigger on a major payroll increasing deal.

I can fault them.

They didn't have a need at closer.

They traded for a closer, picked up his option and demoted a pitcher who, at that time, was doing a fine job.

[DrungoHazewood]

I can fault them.

They didn't have a need at closer.

They traded for a closer, picked up his option and demoted a pitcher who, at that time, was doing a fine job.

Plus, they picked up a new closer who came with a "I absolutely have to be the closer because that's the kind of bro I am" tag.

[Redskins Rick]

Plus, they picked up a new closer who came with a "I absolutely have to be the closer because that's the kind of bro I am" tag.

I would have fired the GM that authorized that, if I was the owner of the team.

[DrungoHazewood]

I would have fired the GM that authorized that, if I was the owner of the team.

So how do you reconcile that with your prior statement:

But, the Nats did try and improve mid season, when they traded for Paps.

True, it was a bad deal, but you can't fault them for not improving during the mid-season, when they pulled the trigger on a major payroll increasing deal.

[Redskins Rick]

So how do you reconcile that with your prior statement:

What I meant, the poster said the NATs were unwilling to increase the payroll.

Which is wrong, they did.

What I meant, I can't fault them for trying to improve the team.

I think how they went about it, was wrong, but they did increase the payroll.

[weams]

What I meant, the poster said the NATs were unwilling to increase the payroll.

Which is wrong, they did.

What I meant, I can't fault them for trying to improve the team.

I think how they went about it, was wrong, but they did increase the payroll.

I thought Philadelphia paid all of his 2015 salary in exchange for DC picking up his option. That is not increasing payroll.

[weams]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/mlb-managers-general-managers-front-office-ivy-league-sabermetrics-archetypes-110515

The Mariners found their guy in Jerry Dipoto, and he found his guy in former catcher and Angels executive Scott Servais. The Phillies found their guy in that same Angels front office, hiring Dartmouth grad Matt Kentak. The Angels found in Billy Eppler their guy to replace those guys. The Brewers made fresh-faced Harvard man David Stearns their fresh-faced Harvard man.

And then these guys, and other guys, started hiring their guys: The Marlins chose Don Mattingly, the Padres chose Andy Green, the Nationals chose Bud Black—then lost him with a lowball offer so that now the Dodgers might choose him. And then, on Tuesday, a minor miracle: Washington chose Dusty Baker, the first move in months to suggest this isn’t all just a little bit of history repeating. Though it probably is.

After Servais’ Mariners press conference, much was made of the rapport between the new manager and the new GM, their previous collaboration, and the importance of speaking the same language. This is a crucial phrase, nearly as troubling in the figurative meaning as if it were literal. At the heart of the push for front office and managerial diversity is the desire to expand the range of common language.

The existing language of the modern front office might make those already on the inside more comfortable, but it isn’t the only way to talk about baseball, and it certainly isn’t the only or even the best way to move the game forward. Look at the organizations that we just saw in the World Series: The Royals and Mets took very different routes to arrive at the top of the baseball world, as did the Giants in 2014, and the Red Sox in 2013. There are very different routes available. In a game constantly in search of the next edge, do we really think when the front office sings a universal refrain of “market inefficiency” it can't use those lyrics to actually find the next one?

[weams]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dodgers expected to hire Dave Roberts as manager

<a href="https://t.co/uElOgHH850">https://t.co/uElOgHH850</a></p>— Orioles Hangout (@OriolesHangout) <a href="

">November 23, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[OFFNY]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Dodgers expected to hire Dave Roberts as manager

<a href="https://t.co/uElOgHH850">https://t.co/uElOgHH850</a></p>— Orioles Hangout (@OriolesHangout) <a href="

">November 23, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[video=youtube;jEvepm86rDM]