SI ranks MacPhail the 12th best GM in MLB (but 4th in AL East)

[twoBshorty]

Cashman should be ranked lower because for the amount of money he has spent, his teams should have done more. Very poor efficiency of spending. And the farm system is a big minus. I agree with Epstein at #2 only because my admittedly somewhat baseless speculation is that he would do fine in a small market. He is obsessed with player development, long-term planning, and seems very into establishing and fine-tuning processes that have to be followed and considered when making moves, which is what you need to do in a small market. He's also very bold. It would be a big adjustment, but I think he could swing it. Cashman I'm not so sure of. I really hope they both get tired of Boston and New York at some point and decide to live in the slow lane and run the Pirates or something so we can see what happens.

Two people who really shouldn't be on this list at all are Alex Anthopoulos and Jed Hoyer. They are ranked incredibly low and that's not fair to them because they haven't done anything yet, they just barely got their jobs. No games yet, no drafts, nothing. So what are they being evaluated on here?

[byrdz]

But at what point does efficiency compared to the rest of the league stop mattering? I'd have to say when you win nearly 100 games a year and stay within your budget.

Something to ponder for sure. He's on another planet when it comes to resources so it's so difficult to judge by efficiency alone. Is he a good GM? Sure. Is he top 3? I don't think that can be answered without a level playing field.

The point of him not signing the Zitos and Sorianos of the world is a good one. That shows that he IS a good judge of talent. He has made his mistakes but they haven't really affected the bigger picture. This convinces me that not just anyone could do what he's done with the same money.

[hoosiers]

The point of him not signing the Zitos and Sorianos of the world is a good one. That shows that he IS a good judge of talent. He has made his mistakes but they haven't really affected the bigger picture. This convinces me that not just anyone could do what he's done with the same money.

Besides the guys I mentioned earlier (Vasquez, Weaver, RJ), there is Sterling Hitchcock, Heredia, Karsay and the list goes on - so many mediocre bullpen guys. Was it Josh Phelps the NYY "stole" from the Os? That guy really performed for the NYY, didn't he? Not. Was Cashman the one who traded for a mediocre Raul Mondesi?

IMO, it's difficult to look at so many failed decisions of the NYY and conclude that Cashman is a good judge of talent. Cashman can afford to take chances, but I would expect a better hit rate.

[DrungoHazewood]

I get that. I'm asking your opinion.

I don't think I have one. I'd like it to be MacPhail, but that's based on nothing. That's not an opinion, that's more like hope.

[ledzepp8]

There might be 10 guys here who could do that, if they have the people skills and management skills and responsibility and financial chops and other stuff required to do the job. But the top 10 posters at OH aren't an average fan. An average fan couldn't pick Robert Andino or Brandon Erbe out of a lineup.

Okay, I think you're the only one talking about people skills, management skills, responsibility, and financial chops of being a team's executive. When everyone is discussing the best GM, they are talking about the job of actually building the roster and how successful they are at that.

Now clearly, Cashman has been successful and it's easy to say that. But how do we judge his prowess as a GM when his job basically consists of, "I want the top free agent(s) and I'll give them however much money they want"?

It really doesn't take any skill to realize that ARod is probably the best player in baseball or that Tex was the best hitter on the market last offseason or that CC was the best pitcher on the market last year, etc. And it really doesn't take much skill to throw the most money at them no matter what the results.

[carolinaoriole]

What has Billy Beane ever done to show that he belongs in the top 10 of this list.

Has he ever proven that he can take oakland to the next level ?

He reminds me a lot of Dale Earnhart jr.

He has a lot of fans but I can not figure out why.

He should not be known for moneyball.

Instead it should be called Moneymediocreball.

[carolinaoriole]

Bashing Cashman really shows poor knowledge and understanding of what he has accomplished and what he values.

If it were up to him, he wouldn't be spending the crazy money...He believes in what we are doing and what TB did...He wants more of a MiL system and things like that.

But he has more pressures than most and needs to win all the time.

Cashman is a wonderful GM.

He is an unproven GM.

To say differant shows very poor knowledge and understanding of the game

HA HA.

[carolinaoriole]

http://brittghiroli.mlblogs.com/

Britt agrees that Cashman doesn't deserve to be there.

She is brilliant!!

[BaltimoreTerp]

It's simply impossible to judge Cashman. He should appear as a separate addition to any list like this, because he is operating on a completely separate plane.

Even the gigantic market teams like Boston and the Mets and the Cubs and the Angels still have limits that leave them closer to the rest of the pack than to the Yankees. Omar Minaya was mentioned, but he isn't a relevant argument since he still has to operate within real limits and cannot just brush off mistakes in the same way as the Yankees have with guys like Pavano or Igawa.

And others have already posted the lists of free agents they have signed. The fact isn't that a chimpanzee could do his job, but that Minaya, or Jim Beattie, or some other GM who is a great baseball person but has failed in the top role could do a similar job, simply because of the mistake factor.

I have nothing bad to say about Cashman's performance or abilities, at the very least because we simply don't know what they are.

[RShack]

Cashman should be ranked lower because for the amount of money he has spent, his teams should have done more.

Depends on whether you think efficiency counts. The MFY's finished in 1st place 9 years in a row and 10 out of 12. That's hard to beat. I'm sure everybody connected with the MFY's think they should've made it to the WS more than 6 times in 12 years, but what they did is still hard to beat.

We know his job description mainly is about winning. Not sure that his job description includes being efficient with money. Robert E. Lee was way more efficient than Ulysses S. Grant. Grant's idea was to stock up on troops and supplies until the other guy had no prayer. Nothing efficient about that, but who won the war? Now, this is not exactly the same thing, but it's not exactly different either...

[BaltimoreTerp]

Depends on whether you think efficiency counts. The MFY's finished in 1st place 9 years in a row and 10 our of 12. That's hard to beat. I'm sure everybody connected with the MFY's think they should've made it to the WS more than 6 times in 12 years, but what they did is still hard to beat.

We know his job description mainly is about winning. Not sure that his job description includes being efficient with money. Robert E. Lee was way more efficient than Ulysses S. Grant. Grant's idea was to stock up on troops and supplies until the other guy had no prayer. Nothing efficient about that, but who won the war? Now, this is not exactly the same thing, but it's not exactly different either...

That's right, but two problems.

1) Grant showed he was a hell of a general in earlier campaigns, and since he was basically given absolute control with the sole goal of ending the war, he did exactly what he needed to do.

The equivalent would be the Red Sox beating up the Yankees for the past decade, and the Yankees going out and hiring away Billy Beane and giving him a blank checkbook.

2) Lee seems to be considered a better commander historically than Grant was, despite how good he was.

Not to jack this thread into a historical debate, but I don't think its all that similar.

[Mad Mark]

It's simply impossible to judge Cashman. He should appear as a separate addition to any list like this, because he is operating on a completely separate plane.

I agree with this completely. Cashman's job is really difficult because he's expected to win the World Series every year. It's also really easy because he has more resources than the next two guys combined. I really do believe you just have to pull him off the board and rank the 29 "other guys".

It's interesting to see how much weight the writer placed on time spent on the job (except for Friedman) when compiling this list. Everything I read down here about Mike Rizzo is glowingly positive, yet he's mired in the lower reaches of this ranking.

[mweb]

His abilities come armed with a 250 million dollar payroll.

I'm not going to bash him and I'm not going to try and proclaim that he's not a great GM or anything.

But much has been made of the Mets and Minaya. Could they cover up their mistakes with an additional 100 million? Maybe.

I'm not impressed with him. I'm sorry, I'm not. He's never made an in season trade like Theo did with Nomar that helped shape a team and take them to a title. On a few levels that deal showed that Theo has pretty big balls...and it wasn't a superstar for superstar trade...it wasn't a superstar for prospects trade...it was a superstar for role players trade. I don't think Cashman could do that. Off the top of my head, he hasn't done that.

I'm just not impressed and I don't think it takes a particular genius to spend 250 million when you can pick good to great players practically every year. His mistakes have been discussed here -almost ad nauseum-and no one can deny that they weren't covered up by spending more money to fix them.

I'm not bashing him, I don't think he's awful...I just don't see what the big deal is.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. I still don't see how anyone can properly evaluate him. He's not operating under the the same framework as everyone else, in fact, it's not close.

I'm not saying anyone can do what he does, or that a GM in general is even close to being an easy job, or that dealing with the Steinbrenner's is easy, etc, however I would guess a decent portion of current MLB GM's could be just as effective if not more so with the same budget.

[byrdz]

That's right, but two problems.

1) Grant showed he was a hell of a general in earlier campaigns, and since he was basically given absolute control with the sole goal of ending the war, he did exactly what he needed to do.

The equivalent would be the Red Sox beating up the Yankees for the past decade, and the Yankees going out and hiring away Billy Beane and giving him a blank checkbook.

2) Lee seems to be considered a better commander historically than Grant was, despite how good he was.

Not to jack this thread into a historical debate, but I don't think its all that similar.

Interesting analogy though, I do love war history, not as much up on Civil War as WWII history though.

[RShack]

That's right, but two problems.

1) Grant showed he was a hell of a general in earlier campaigns, and since he was basically given absolute control with the sole goal of ending the war, he did exactly what he needed to do.

The equivalent would be the Red Sox beating up the Yankees for the past decade, and the Yankees going out and hiring away Billy Beane and giving him a blank checkbook.

So, you're saying the analogy is bad because Cashman never had to take Vicksburg? ;-)

2) Lee seems to be considered a better commander historically than Grant was, despite how good he was.

Not to jack this thread into a historical debate, but I don't think its all that similar.

If guys who study this stuff ranked the top 30 generals in the Civil War, Grant would be somewhere very near the top, and that would be true even if he never had the Western campaign. Now, exactly where he would rank, I have no idea. But they wouldn't kick him out of the Top Few just because he had lots of resources. He'd be near the top because of what he did with all the resources he had, which is the same reason Cashman is ranked high. Look, I hate the MFY's as much as anybody, but arguing with success generally doesn't work, no matter what domain you're talking about.