Top President / EVP Candidates?

[Camden_yardbird]

Wow, the amount of self defeatists whose position is "this is a terrible job, we wont get anyone good" is astounding and ignorant of recent history.  McPhail built a strong base, Dan built a 5 year contender.  Gillick built the best team in baseball.  

But the Yankees and Boston are good again...

Sure, and until MLB get serious about a competitively balanced game they will always have more resources, but just because they are good doesn't mean they will continue.  Dombrowski is good at creating a competitive MLB team, and a husk of the rest of the organization.  The Yankees have a lot of super flawed players, and have a history of bad contracts.

What is true is the Orioles dont ba e much right now, and its east to look at that chasm they have to climb and say no one would want that challenge, but to be 1 of 30 the candidates for president or GM dont look at it as insurrmountable, they arent wired that way, and the ones who do, you dont want them anyway.

 

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Wow, the amount of self defeatists whose position is "this is a terrible job, we wont get anyone good" is astounding and ignorant of recent history.  McPhail built a strong base, Dan built a 5 year contender.  Gillick built the best team in baseball.  

But the Yankees and Boston are good again...

Sure, and until MLB get serious about a competitively balanced game they will always have more resources, but just because they are good doesn't mean they will continue.  Dombrowski is good a good creating a competitive MLB team, and a husk of the rest of the organization.  The Yankees have a lot of super flawed players, and have a history of bad contracts.

What is true is the Orioles dont ba e much right now, and its east to look at that chasm they have to climb and say no one would want that challenge, but to be 1 of 30 the candidates for president or GM dont look at it as insurrmountable, they arent wired that way, and the ones who do, you dont want them anyway.

 

Nice post!!!!!!

[weams]

13 minutes ago, atomic said:

You don't understand the meaning of straw man argument.  When everyone who has had a position in baseball for the last 10 years turns you down that is not a straw man argument.  

Here are some guys who turned us down who never got a GM position:

Tony LaCava
DeJon Watson
Mike Radcliff

 

 

Quote

Twins deny Orioles permission to interview Mike Radcliff

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2011/11/04/twins-deny-orioles-permission-to-interview-mike-radcliff/

http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7188474/los-angeles-dodgers-dejon-watson-withdraws-baltimore-orioles-gm-search-source-says

Quote

LaCava wanted to clear out some long-term front-office people whose jobs have been protected by Angelos. Angelos refused to do that, even though he was willing to pay LaCava a competitive salary and to bring in other front-office people that LaCava wanted to hire (including Mike Berger, currently the director of pro scouting with the Diamondbacks).

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2011/11/03/why-did-tony-lacava-turn-down-the-orioles/

[TonySoprano]

13 minutes ago, weams said:

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2011/11/04/twins-deny-orioles-permission-to-interview-mike-radcliff/

http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7188474/los-angeles-dodgers-dejon-watson-withdraws-baltimore-orioles-gm-search-source-says

https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2011/11/03/why-did-tony-lacava-turn-down-the-orioles/

Watson saw the writing on the wall.

Quote

However, it became apparent that the Orioles' interest in Watson might have been lukewarm after Toronto Blue Jays assistant GM Tony LaCava was the first to be offered the position but turned it down.

Rather than turning at that point to Watson, who was the only remaining candidate from outside the organization, the Orioles instead expanded their field of candidates, even as the window of time in which the Dodgers had given the Orioles permission to talk to Watson was expiring.

http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7188474/los-angeles-dodgers-dejon-watson-withdraws-baltimore-orioles-gm-search-source-says

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, TonySoprano said:

Watson saw the writing on the wall.

http://www.espn.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7188474/los-angeles-dodgers-dejon-watson-withdraws-baltimore-orioles-gm-search-source-says

Wait, none of this is real, its all fake.

The Orioles are just sitting back, doing nothing at all.

[hoosiers]

5 hours ago, wildcard said:

I think most young GMs with good scouting and player development skills would jump at the O's GM job under r the these conditions:

1) They are given the length of contract it takes to build from the ground up.

2) They have the freedom and money to build a strong farm system with the proper support from a staff  their pick  including scouting (with international) , player development,  and analytics.

3) Access to ownership.  Most confident GMs would think the can out influence anyone else with ownership  given time and access.

4) This would give them a blank slate to build from like the Astros, Cubs and Phillies.   A young strong candidate is looking  for that kind of situation.

5) Being in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox is not ideal but as long as the candidate has the time to build he would probably think he can have his/her team ready when the next down cycle for those teams happens.  

Not saying all of these aren't valid points, but IMO there is a clear difference in the attractiveness of the markets in Houston, Chicago and Philly versus Bmore.  

Regarding point 3, someone might think they can neutralize or utilize Brady, but it would raise flags for a large majority of candidates IMO.  

I am not saying we won't land a good candidate, but I doubt we are going to land a young "up and comer" with bright prospects.  

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, hoosiers said:

Not saying all of these aren't valid points, but IMO there is a clear difference in the attractiveness of the markets in Houston, Chicago and Philly versus Bmore.  

Regarding point 3, someone might think they can neutralize or utilize Brady, but it would raise flags for a large majority of candidates IMO.  

I am not saying we won't land a good candidate, but I doubt we are going to land a young "up and comer" with bright prospects.  

Only 30 jobs in MLB with the Job Description of  Baseball Team General Manager.

Most people are not able to be very choosy in which team is interested in them.

There usually more candidates available then job openings.

 

[hoosiers]

Just now, Redskins Rick said:

Only 30 jobs in MLB with the Job Description of  Baseball Team General Manager.

Most people are not able to be very choosy in which team is interested in them.

There usually more candidates available then job openings.

 

You can say this until you are blue in the face as far as I am concerned.

You look at any list of the top five up and coming GM candidates and I would bet we are not going to get one of them.

And, despite the perceived attractiveness to be "one of the 30" club, we have been turned down before and had guys withdraw from consideration.  

I think we will get someone decent to good, perhaps even someone who could be excellent, but I don't think we will be getting the "hot" candidates seen listed in other threads.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, hoosiers said:

You can say this until you are blue in the face as far as I am concerned.

You look at any list of the top five up and coming GM candidates and I would bet we are not going to get one of them.

And, despite the perceived attractiveness to be "one of the 30" club, we have been turned down before and had guys withdraw from consideration.  

I think we will get someone decent to good, perhaps even someone who could be excellent, but I don't think we will be getting the "hot" candidates seen listed in other threads.

Sometimes somebody a bit green, can turn into a real diamond. Not always, but sometimes.

I am grateful clowns like Bobby Valentine has backed out, we call that addition by subtraction.

Some guys actually like a bigger challenge. I knew a manager in the business world, he loved going into a bad place, turning things around, once things were smooth, he moved onto the next challenge.

[Satyr3206]

53 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Sometimes somebody a bit green, can turn into a real diamond. Not always, but sometimes.

I am grateful clowns like Bobby Valentine has backed out, we call that addition by subtraction.

Some guys actually like a bigger challenge. I knew a manager in the business world, he loved going into a bad place, turning things around, once things were smooth, he moved onto the next challenge.

My Brother always did that. If you start at the bottom there's only one way to go.

[Satyr3206]

1 hour ago, hoosiers said:

You can say this until you are blue in the face as far as I am concerned.

You look at any list of the top five up and coming GM candidates and I would bet we are not going to get one of them.

And, despite the perceived attractiveness to be "one of the 30" club, we have been turned down before and had guys withdraw from consideration.  

I think we will get someone decent to good, perhaps even someone who could be excellent, but I don't think we will be getting the "hot" candidates seen listed in other threads.

I usually agree with you. If you're a young ML Exec how many opportunities will come your way? It's not like they are asking on Craigslist.

This all depends on how they want things to run now. A clear FO structure, or more of the last 20 years.

[Satyr3206]

Here's my hire's. Bill Veeck as President,  Larry McPhail as GM, and Leo Durocher as Manager.

[hoosiers]

14 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

I usually agree with you. If you're a young ML Exec how many opportunities will come your way? It's not like they are asking on Craigslist.

This all depends on how they want things to run now. A clear FO structure, or more of the last 20 years.

You can talk about this job in a generic sense - as if it were similar to one of the other 30 or you can understand our reality.  We have arguably the least investment internationally of any organization in baseball.  If we are not near the worst five analytic groups in MLB, I think it is safe to say that we trail the worst by a large margin.  We have three of the top 10 teams in baseball in our division and Toronto has some big time blue chip prospects coming up and is capable of a payroll $30-$50M higher.  There are stories of massive intervention by ownership - running off Gillick, Lacava not getting his way when it comes to the warehouse/front office, Frank Wren regretting he took the job less than a month after being hired.  And now a prospective GM is to understand he/she has 100% carte blanche to run things and believe it?  

I think someone could take the job as a stepping stone - hire up an analytics group of 6-10 folks, put in an international scouting network and get a budget to spend to fulfill international slots, and draft well and leave after three years for greener pastures.  I could see that - hey, Bmore was a tough gig, had major holes in its scouting and front office and analytics and this guy moved the needle and put things in place and Bmore has a brighter future for it, but the Rangers (pick a team) opening was too good to pass up.  I just don't think a hotshot in the Dodgers or BoSox or NYY organization is going to come here - they can wait for a better opportunity.

As I've posted several times, I still think we can get a good candidate - perhaps a very strong one, but I don't think it will be someone from any top 4 GM candidates under 35 type of guys.  We'll see.

[Satyr3206]

3 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

You can talk about this job in a generic sense - as if it were similar to one of the other 30 or you can understand our reality.  We have arguably the least investment internationally of any organization in baseball.  If we are not near the worst five analytic groups in MLB, I think it is safe to say that we trail the worst by a large margin.  We have three of the top 10 teams in baseball in our division and Toronto has some big time blue chip prospects coming up and is capable of a payroll $30-$50M higher.  There are stories of massive intervention by ownership - running off Gillick, Lacava not getting his way when it comes to the warehouse/front office, Frank Wren regretting he took the job less than a month after being hired.  And now a prospective GM is to understand he/she has 100% carte blanche to run things and believe it?  

I think someone could take the job as a stepping stone - hire up an analytics group of 6-10 folks, put in an international scouting network and get a budget to spend to fulfill international slots, and draft well and leave after three years for greener pastures.  I could see that - hey, Bmore was a tough gig, had major holes in its scouting and front office and analytics and this guy moved the needle and put things in place and Bmore has a brighter future for it, but the Rangers (pick a team) opening was too good to pass up.  I just don't think a hotshot in the Dodgers or BoSox or NYY organization is going to come here - they can wait for a better opportunity.

As I've posted several times, I still think we can get a good candidate - perhaps a very strong one, but I don't think it will be someone from any top 4 GM candidates under 35 type of guys.  We'll see.

I agree. I think about it this way. The Draft and International signings are very important in the next few years. Focus there if possible.

The FO staff need to have someone that has developed an Organization. They may not get one of the people that are the hot hires, but they can get someone capable.

[Ohfan67]

19 minutes ago, hoosiers said:

 And now a prospective GM is to understand he/she has 100% carte blanche to run things and believe it?  

 

I largely agree with the sentiment and details of your posts in this thread. I think good candidates will be very wary of the Orioles. I think some other posters are underestimating how frustrating the Orioles are. Some execs are willing to be an Asst GM in a good situation versus be a GM, but without all the authority, in a bad situation. I would much rather be second in command of a well run ship than instead of only partially in charge despite the title of captain of a poorly run ship. But I am optimistic that the Angelos brothers can, emphasis on can, convince a good candidate that they have control. One way is that if a candidate were to say something like I need you to get rid of Brady Anderson and/or others from the old regime before I accept this job, then the Angelos brothers could push Brady out the next day, with a golden parachute if needed. I think to convince a good candidate there may have to be upfront action and not just pledges.