Jon Weisman breaks down Frank McCourt
by meercatjohn on Feb 9, 2010 9:51 AM PST
in News
Email
Printwith a killer Frank McCourt Interview in which he seems to ask just about every question you could think of. We may not like or agree with the answers, we may think he's still hiding some information or being coy, but Jon asked the right questions.
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Indians are hiring stats people
Hat tip to The Book, which has the job description of the type of stats people they are looking for.
Great article
I believe this
But the evidence is more compelling that the Dodgers largely spend when they want to, that their relatively quiet offseason mostly reflected a lack of exciting options in the free-agent market, that their bargain-hunting is a strategy to avoid wasting money rather than a recourse to avoid spending money they don’t have.
but I don’t really believe this
“Generally speaking, we do spend at that level just below the Yankees and the Red Sox,” McCourt said.
And generally speaking, I still can’t quite buy what McCourt is trying to sell here.
Yup
really misspoke on that one. He must have been talking about hot dogs because he wasn’t talking about payroll.
I don’t really care about McCourt. I do care (and worry about) our GM-for-life Ned Colletti. I think we’re going to lose White and Ng one of these days and we’ll see what type of vision Colletti truly has. A great franchise with great players and a serviceable manager can’t overcome poor general managing. I don’t believe in Ned.
Maybe not
but I have no compelling reason to believe that Logan White can be a good GM or Kim Ng. Logan White is great at what he does, but as GM his duties would have little to do with scouting. Kim Ng may know everything there is to know about every admin part of the job, but that does not mean she can do the other parts of the GM job. We won’t know until they become a GM because as of now each of them only does a small % of the total job a GM would do.
I wasn't trying to advocate that Ng or White should replace Ned
but merely saying I don’t know if I trust Ned in terms of player personnel without the advice of White.
His advice
did not keep Santana or Bell on the team. I think DeJon Watson has more input on the value of the current prospects, his job is developing them, Logan’s job is to get them.
Logan White
will not leave until he gets a GM job. Very very few of those opening come up and given how he has been treated when those opening have opened up doesn’t sound like he’s going to be a GM anytime soon. Kim has been in on some big time jobs, at this point other woman might be passing her on the ladder to becoming the first female GM. I just don’t think it is going to happen in such a male dominated sport. Not soon enough for her anyway.
indeed
In particular, Kim Ng seems to get almost reflexive praise amongst fans a lot of the time. Sure, she’s excelled at her current position, but that doesn’t mean she’d so much of an upgrade, or even BE an upgrade, with the top job.
I’d trust Logan White maybe a LITTLE bit more, just because we at least know he has an eye for talent. But yeah, that doesn’t mean he’d have other aspects of what is needed to be a good GM.
I think the optimism
stems from the low ability of the current GM though.
Like saying you want to grade from Theo Epstein is fine, but is Jed Hoyer or another assistant really gonna be a top 3 GM? It’s much more likely that an assistant can replace somebody like Bavasi or Malone or Sabean or whatever. Colletti isn’t exactly the upper crust here.
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
no, but I think he's done pretty well overall, so far
I sort of think of him like the types of players he obtains- Pierre, Blake, Furcal, etc.- in that while he is not going to set the world on fire, he’s a solid company guy, who makes the most out of what he’s got.
The more he has had
The deeper grave he dug himself
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 10, 2010 2:48 AM PST up reply actions
No, I don't think we'll see his vision
until he is given a normal payroll and not instructions to cut costs
We saw his vision in the first half of regime before Phil mentioned everything started becoming a cost cutting move after July 2008 or so.
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
Ironically
This made him a far more effective GM. :o
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
Just to play devil’s advocate for a minute: one way managers are gauged is by the performance of those that work for him/her, whether or not he/she hired them or retained them. Given the fondness some hold for White, Ng, Watson, whoever, Colletti does get credit for the job that they do, just like my boss gets credit for work I do for him.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Managers are
incorrectly judged that way
in my opinion :o
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 10, 2010 2:49 AM PST up reply actions
I disagree. In my experience, my biggest problem with bad managers is that they aren’t savvy enough to identify the correct people to listen to for guidance. When manager picks the wrong people for key positions, the organization flounders. When they pick the right people, the organization succeeds.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
by David Young on Feb 10, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
Great article!
Boy did they totally whiff on Santana. But who doesn’t know this anymore? Ned really wanted Casey Blake and gave them a gem, and not just a gem, a catcher with power.
If Jon's source
can be believed than it appears that Ned simply wanted Blake and if the price was Santana they decided so be it. Ned was on the record recently saying that before they pulled the trigger they sent their best evaluator to look at Santana and evidently based on what he said they felt they could trade him. I’d have a long talk with that evaluator but who knows they may still be right, Santana has yet to garner a single major league at bat. He may simply end up being Andy LaRoche and if that was the price for Blake no big deal, if he ends up being a Victor Martinez then they oops big time.
I'm still skeptical, to put it nicely
the Dodgers certainly didn’t do anything at the time to counter the rumors that they could’ve just given up an additional $2 million- it’s only now that he’s getting closer to becoming the real deal that we’re hearing this damage control. The Indians had Victor Martinez, and it seems unlikely that they would have been SO hard pressed for Santana- especially considering how much less they got for C C Sabathia, and then later for Cliff Lee.
By countering the rumor
They would then have to be on the record about that deal. And frankly, no one (not the Indians either) have ever confirmed nor denied the details about the deal.
The national media has a general storyline about the Dodgers for the past couple of years, dysfunctional front office and potential cashflow problems. Thus, it is in their interest to continue to cite unnamed sources to back up these stories.
I don't think it matters how they turn out
If absolutely nothing else, Santana was the upper level key piece the Dodgers were missing in trades for guys like Halladay or Lee or Gonzalez or whoever else they were after. Hell, if Meloan continues to do what he did in Oakland last year, maybe even he was too much to give up for 3 months of Blake.
by Chad Moriyama on Feb 9, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't realize:
Meloan’s career AL numbers: 10 1/3 innings, six baserunners, 13 strikeouts, 0.00 ERA. And they say the NL is the easy league :)
Small nitpick: Jon’s article said not signing Hochevar gave us the pick to get Kershaw. What he meant to say (and I know this has been discussed plenty) is that without Hochevar in the 2006 draft, KC would’ve taken Andrew Miller #1 and Detroit would’ve gotten Kershaw at #6.
Speculating about the draft is just that, speculation
Lincecum, Longoria and Kershaw should have been the first 3 players taken in that draft. Certainly, all three should have gone before Hochevar.
Press Guide
Does anyone know when and where the Maple Street guide can be purchased? I saw it will be in some local bookstores.
by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 12:32 PM PST reply actions
Thanks, Jon. I think I will look for it on the news stands because I don’t want to pay $5 for shipping.
by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
Of course you might spend more than $5 of your time, of wear on your car or the soles of your shoes, etc., trying to find it. But could ask your local guy if the store is ordering it, then at least you’ll know where to go.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
That’s the plan. Call local places…if no go, than I order online.
by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
Scott White at CBS is calling Manny a 2010 bust, Billingsley poised for a breakout, and Loney a sleeper.
I like (and agree with) 2 of those 3 things
I guess it also depends on how you define “bust”. Most people would probably settle for Manny’s 2009 (minus the suspension), so long as the performance was a lot more even than it was in ’09.
Dodgers are going to have 11 spring games on Prime Ticket, plus 3 more on KCAL. I’ll have a post up shortly.
When does “Better Know an NRI” begin? ;)
by kinbote on Feb 9, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The email I got yesterday said that MLB.TV would cover all spring training with no blackouts.
by robotmadeofnails on Feb 9, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
That seems like a ton of games
Great to hear. I only remember watching 1 game on TV last year (not to say that more weren’t televised, but it didn’t seem like very many were.)
by Michael White on Feb 9, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
The one obvious mistruth
should have been followed up.
McCourt claims to take a “philosophical” not “economic” position on slotting. That cannot be true, however, if he ever breaks slot. That is, if you really believe (as McCourt claimed) that the draft rules and the slotting are “what is good for baseball” and the it is “wrong” to deviate from that, then you don’t deviate from it. But, he does. Just not very often.
That means slotting is not an ethical position for McCourt, but rather something to always be considered, but simply rarely done (again, presumably for economic reasons).
Couldn’t one just as easily say that slotting is “simply rarely done (presumably for philosophical reasons).”
I’m not saying he’s not spinning and that economics don’t play a role, but I don’t understand your rationale that any behavior that violates a philosophy means that the philosophy doesn’t exist. I don’t believe I should ever yell at my kids, but I have.
You yell at your kids on an impulse
You don’t sit around, discussing with a staff whether or not you should yell at your kids and then decide – well I think yelling at my kids is wrong, but tomorrow I will do it.
If you look at what he said:
“we are one of 30 teams”
“…fairness of baseball”
“..purpose of the draft system”
“It is wrong [to pay out of slot]”
That is not a line of reasoning that can lead you to “I will occasionally pay over slot.” Those are statements that “We are all in this together and for the good of baseball I will not pay over slot.”
But then occasionally, but never for much money, he does.
This is just not the sort of philosophical reason subject to gray areas. There are no impulses involved here – just well thought out and vetted decisions.
If you disagree, please distinguish, on philosophical – not economic – grounds the difference between Hochevar and Gould.
I don’t think it’s philosophical the reason he doesn’t always go over-slot. In fact, Jon discusses that the real reason why he doesn’t go over slot is for diplomatic reasons. He is trying to (at least artificially show) that he is on board with the Commisoner’s office WRT slotting so that he can exchange that political capital for consessions on revenue splits and other issues more important to him. Within this lens, you can see how he can make 1 off exceptions. For the most part, he goes along with the slot recommendations so that it pleases the commisioners office and buys him some good will. Occasionally a player will be drafted who he believes is too good of a talent to simply lose so he goes over slot. While this will cause some damage to his political capital, it doesn’t completely obliterate it either. He’s picking his battles.
/That’s the way you can convice yourself that selectively going over slot is not an economic decision
by Michael White on Feb 11, 2010 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
- Dennis ‘Oil Can’ Boyd claims he used cocaine before a majority of his games
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
