"She's paid her dues" isn't exactly a case for hiring a candidate, and I'm not clear why being a "trail blazer" is desirable either. If I'm a Nats fan, I want my owner to hire the best GM possible, regardless of gender, race, or any other irrelevant factors.

If Kevin Towers leaves SD, I have to think he'd be a prime candidate. But is a Jim Bowden firing a slam dunk? He's had one of the worst years a gm can possibly have (not all his fault, but still) and he's still around so maybe Nats ownership is really committed to him. Is it possible MLB made promises about job security to Bowden when he took the position? His continued employment baffles me a little.

Is it possible MLB made promises about job security to Bowden when he took the position?

The sale closed during the season in 2006. Really, Bowden's only survived one offseason with the new owners.

Also, in fairness to Bowden, 73-89 probably did exceed expectations.

EDIT: I know that's technically two offseasons but new ownership probably had a lot of work to do and wouldn't really be focused on getting a new GM 6 months after taking the reins.

The line of thinking is that Bowden has done a supremely excellent job of ass-kissery with the Lerner family, especially the son. That, as much as anything, has given him a bit of a longer leash than his biggest detractors would like.

There've also been a number of unsourced reports that Kasten doesn't want him around, but that without the Lerners' support, he can't do a thing about it. If you've read any of Kasten's comments recently about the team, they've all been of the sort, "don't ask me. I'm not the GM."

Whether that Kasten v. Bowden/Lerner divide is as its sometimes portrayed? I dunno. But you don't have to squint too much, or read too much into some of the public statements to think that it's entirely possible.

They should have fired him immediately; the Boston ownership did with Dan Duquette, who was a GOOD GM. Replacing him with Duquette would be great, but I'm not holding my breath. This team is badly run.

Is it possible MLB made promises about job security to Bowden when he took the position?

Absolutely not. Bowden was (best of my recollection) somewhere between the third and sixth pick for the job at the time, and he quite openly interviewed for other positions while still the Nats' GM in the '05-06 offseason. He was essentially a temp employee under MLB ownership and received something like a "6-month contract extension" when the Lernasten sale originally went down. As Murray hints at and Needham outright claims, the dope seems to be that Bodes made friends with Mark Lerner. And the rest has been not-quite-history.

Each of those free agency suggestions is absolutely terrible. I get the instinct- you're in a big market, spend like it, but Delgado? Thome? That's absurd.

Sabathia, while fun (I'll admit I'd be willing to go see him a few times), wouldn't really be defensible, either. I'm guessing they'd finish in last for at least the first 2 years of his next contract, if not more.

Brown makes some excellent points, plus I think to some extent he understands the bruised, fragile psyche of the Washington baseball fan. This market hasn't experienced a real NLB pennant race since 1945 and has had all of one winning season since 1952 (with more than three decades of no baseball in between). Everything that can go wrong has gone wrong for D.C. baseball (e.g., the Griffith Senators leaving just as they were becoming good).

But this is a genuinely large market now, not the small semi-southern outpost it was in the '40s and '50s. The Lerners need to act like this is a big market and be aggressive. Cashman may not be a perfect GM, but he would be a substantial improvement over Bowden -- plus he's local (Georgetown Prep, Catholic U.), a PR plus. However, signing free agents is frankly mere window dressing, and few with any real value would want to come to this franchise in its current state.

Another thing that has to be done is improve the ballpark experience. The food is better at Nationals Park than it was at RFK, and so is the seating, but the atmosphere remains lousy. It often appears the Nats are more interested in the presidents' race than on the product. Get rid of the obnoxious Clint and tell the usher who dances to "Sweet Caroline" during visiting team pitching changes to find another song to dance to (we don't want a Red Sox song in our ballpark!). Stop insulting our intelligence.

but the atmosphere remains lousy.

I think some of that is the design of the stadium itself. I think that with all those different seating islands, there's no sense of continuity in the place. I sit in the 300s (the lower part of the upper deck), and I feel detached from other fans. Maybe it's different if you're in other sections, but from walking around the place, i haven't really seen much to make me change my mind on that.

"She's paid her dues" isn't exactly a case for hiring a candidate, and I'm not clear why being a "trail blazer" is desirable either. If I'm a Nats fan, I want my owner to hire the best GM possible, regardless of gender, race, or any other irrelevant factors.

Well, yes, but how do you identify the "best GM possible"? You dont have a crystal ball that tells you how will be best for the next five year. The Peter Principle cautions you against just hiring the best assistant GM (if you could even determine that). You could go with the best interviewer, but do you really want to turn the entire organization over to someone on the basis of giving good answers for six hours? Probably the best bet is to go with somehow that has previously been a successful GM for a club in a similar market/situation, but successful GMs tend to not be unemployed and avaiable for hire.

I take the "paid her dues" line to mean the author is arguing "She has as much experience as anyone else likely to be looked at and has done a good job with the responsibilities she has been handed, so why not hire her and reap some positive PR as well?" I, personally, have no way of knowing if that is a sound argument or not.

Got to go after Teixeira, as it would also tweak the Orioles. Severna Park is about equidistant from Baltimore and D.C.

kubiwan, I think you're selling a proper vetting process short. It's not just a good interview - it involves talking to people who've worked with or for the various candidates, looking at track records for people who've worked in scouting or PD, etc.

Also, how does Brown know that Ng (or any similar candidate whose duties have been largely administrative) "has done a good job with the responsibilities she has been handed?"

Whether it has been Paul LoDuca, John Patterson, Johnny Estrada, or Felipe Lopez, . . .

Do the combined salaries of these four equal ONE SEASON OF CARL PAVANO? And your boy Cashman gave Carl FOUR YEARS. Four long useless years. In fact, those four don't even equal what Cashman gave Clemens last year for part of the season.

In fact, show me one Cashman deal that is as good as Dukes for Glenn Gibson? Or even Church and Schneider for Milledge?

And your boy Cashman gave Carl FOUR YEARS. Four long useless years.

As far as I can tell, the general rule of thumb is: all bad Yankees moves get blamed on the Steinbrenners; all good moves are thanks to Cashman. Or, at least, that is the general consensus.

I'm inclined to believe Cashman is a pretty smart guy, but we sure don't have much evidence to go on.

Also, how does Brown know that Ng (or any similar candidate whose duties have been largely administrative) "has done a good job with the responsibilities she has been handed?"

I don't know that he does. Maybe he has researched the issue/talked to insiders/etc and decided that she is the second best option for the Nationals. Maybe he hasn't. But I dont think it is fair to just dismiss his argument as a "give to the minority" hire.

All that said, if there one Primate that I would guess and would trust as having the best info on Ng, it would be you Keith. So what can you tell us about her?

All that said, if there one Primate that I would guess and would trust as having the best info on Ng, it would be you Keith. So what can you tell us about her?

He knows, but he can't tell you.

I'm inclined to believe Cashman is a pretty smart guy, but we sure don't have much evidence to go on.

The man once traded Tony Womack for an actual live human being. That alone should gain him admission to Mensa.

In fact, show me one Cashman deal that is as good as Dukes for Glenn Gibson? Or even Church and Schneider for Milledge?

170 IP of 2.37 ERA relief for 7.25 million over two years? Alex Rodriguez for Alfonso Soriano and Joaquin Arias? Mike Mussina?

But that's not the point. If you think Cashman isn't as good a GM as Bowden, cherrypicking a few of Cashman's worst moves and a couple of Bowden's worst doesn't prove anything. You have to look the whole organizations they've run and built and see what you think about it.

In fact, show me one Cashman deal that is as good as Dukes for Glenn Gibson? Or even Church and Schneider for Milledge?

the Abreu trade was pretty good.

She’s paid her dues and you’ll come out looking like a trail blazer for being the owner that placed a woman at the GM position for the first time in history.

Is she going to be GM or VP?

"She's paid her dues" isn't exactly a case for hiring a candidate, and I'm not clear why being a "trail blazer" is desirable either. If I'm a Nats fan, I want my owner to hire the best GM possible, regardless of gender, race, or any other irrelevant factors

Excellent point. The truth is that Ng has already been interviewed for a couple of GM jobs - including one where her current employer was doing the hiring - and did not get them. Perhaps she is not the best candidate. (Or, are we not allowed to say that because she is a girl?)

Excellent point. The truth is that Ng has already been interviewed for a couple of GM jobs - including one where her current employer was doing the hiring - and did not get them. Perhaps she is not the best candidate. (Or, are we not allowed to say that because she is a girl?)

Honestly, I'd say that not being selected by the management team who thought Ned Coletti was a good choice to run a franchise is--if anything--a point in Ng's favor.

I think some of that is the design of the stadium itself. I think that with all those different seating islands, there's no sense of continuity in the place. I sit in the 300s (the lower part of the upper deck), and I feel detached from other fans.

I feel the same way about Petco Park. Hopefully the trend towards "neighborhoods" in ballparks doesn't continue to override continuity. SF and Philly are two examples that come to mind where the two concepts coexist really well.

Honestly, I'd say that not being selected by the management team who thought Ned Coletti was a good choice to run a franchise is--if anything--a point in Ng's favor.

Fair point. One of the other ones was Houston, so that could work in her favor as well. Then again, she did choose to interview for them.

Looks to me like ol' Keith is merely propping up the old boy network. Maybe he has designs on a job in MLB again, and does not want to appear to be out of lockstep with the owners, who have always preferred recycling known quantities, regardless of how many times they have failed.

I feel the same way about Petco Park.

I do also -- when I am not consumed with the feeling to let loose with a flame thrower while singing Cracker's "Eurotrash Girl."

Looks to me like ol' Keith is merely propping up the old boy network. Maybe he has designs on a job in MLB again, and does not want to appear to be out of lockstep with the owners, who have always preferred recycling known quantities, regardless of how many times they have failed.

That's a $5 fine. Unless I can't issue those here.

My "short list" - if, say, a team Prez was to call and ask my opinion - would not include any former GMs. I've never said publicly who is on that list, for fear of compromising myself (it might look like I was currying favor) or the candidates (it might look like they're sources).

My "short list" - if, say, a team Prez was to call and ask my opinion - would not include any former GMs. I've never said publicly who is on that list, for fear of compromising myself (it might look like I was currying favor) or the candidates (it might look like they're sources).

Come on, Keith. We won't tell.

Actually, it would be really interesting to hear the thoughts of an "insider" on who is real and who is just media/fan wishcasting.

I'd love to write about that, but it's just a bad idea. I'm not saying I'm right about these people, but I can present evidence-based arguments for or against many of the "known" candidates, and I have a few sleepers I'd push out there too.

It's a Nats thread. You could at least tell us what you think about Jim Bowden!

As if that's not clear from every chat question you've ever answered...!

I'd love to write about that, but it's just a bad idea. I'm not saying I'm right about these people, but I can present evidence-based arguments for or against many of the "known" candidates, and I have a few sleepers I'd push out there too

Will you at least write a good book about it in thirty years?

Doing this from iPhone... Let's see if it works on BTF.

Keith, what appears to have been lost in translation here is that the article is about infusing interest in the DC market. Yes, winning cures all ills, but the market is in "house on fire" mode. Ownership needs to make moves beyond the direction being applied now, and have at least one move that screams "star power". You saw the TV and radio figures, correct? The Lerners need to get butts in seats and watching and listening to Nats games. Is Ng the best GM candidate? I didn't say that. I said be daring and bold.

The article perspective was about reviving interest. Currently, there isn't a whole lot to be excited about.

If the Nats want to infuse interest, they should win more games, which means hiring the best GM possible. I don't know of any other way for a team to consistently generate interest - and revenue, which is what really matters at the end of the day.

Similarly, signing a big-ticket free agent might generate a one-time burst of interest, but it's usually a bad business decision for a bad team to spend big bucks on a multi-year deal for an older free agent. The interest fades when the team isn't materially better, and of course, you can create negative attention when the expensive player underperforms, even in a predictable manner.

Keith, can we agree that the Nationals should be in a position to balance smart contractual moves, while not engaging in the method currently being employed? Can we agree that the ability to augment your staff with a quality veteran or two should be more than feasible in the DC market? That they are currently throwing money at bad contracts? And, can we agree that there are possible talented GM candidates that also would resonate with fans? I don't disagree with your ascertion. I'm saying that there should be the ability to reach both means.