Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Duquette somehow got a 3-year contract out of the box (was anybody else bidding for his services) and has already been extended. Seems kinda silly. Both the guys in Miami are apparently signed through 2015.
It’s been close to two and a half years since an MLB GM lost his job, which is the longest lull of at least the last four decades, and is all the more remarkable considering there were fewer teams for most of that span, and thus fewer opportunities for firings. ...
Just curious...what is the duracell gm generation supposed to reference?
CWS - Hahn 2013
(Indians - Shapiro up to pres, Antonetti as exec VP/GM 2013)
Twins - Ryan redux 2012
O's - Duquette 2012 (already extended to 2018 though)
Red Sox - Cherington 2012
Astros - Luhnow 2012
LAA - DiPoto 2012
Cubs - Epstein 2012
Marlins - whatever the hell is going on down there
Padres - Byrnes 2012
Wasn't Duracell's ad tagline in the 90s something catchy like "Lasts Longer"?
We’ve seen current general managers tied to tabloid scandals, lousy public predictions, the fallout from disastrous contracts, and on-the-record allegations of front-office incompetence.
AA is in his fifth season with no obvious progress
However, if the article is correct, then turnover was heavier in the past. That either means that GMs weren't getting long-term contracts or possibly that they were being paid so little teams didn't really care if they fired them mid-deal.
Shapiro started in 2002 and in that time they've made the playoffs twice and just one other winning season. Antonetti is Shapiro's guy.
Did my point get lost?
Unless I missed it, the article missed one key consideration: MLB front offices are far, far more expansive now than they were even 20 years ago. In the "old days," firing a GM meant a small number of other positions would probably need to be filled, but now, titles like Costanza's "assistant to the assistant ..." are much closer to reality than a punchline. A GM who's been on the job for even two or three years probably has hired and installed dozens of "his guys" throughout the organization, from the ML bb ops dept. to scouting, player development, international, etc. It probably takes a new GM a couple of years just to clear out the last GM's guys, unless the owner allows him to eat a lot of contracts.
I don't think that is the biggest issue it missed. Teams are rolling in cash now. It is a lot easier to tolerate a team under-performing on the field, if the money is still rolling in. I think that is a far bigger reason than nebulous effects of the 2nd WC generating an illusion of competitiveness.
Rising profits may have indirectly ensured that the average GM can expect to remain employed longer. [...]
“Teams, more and more, are being run like companies,” says one high-level executive who’s widely considered a GM-in-waiting (and waiting, and waiting). “That means two things: (1) The bottom line is important; if clubs are making money (and most all of them are), you don’t make a change, [...].”
If you are not willing to give a guy you just hired to be your GM a three year contract, you need to seriously reconsider the hiring. Seriously, that isn't enough time for him to draft and develop players.
Cubs - Epstein 2012
The Marlins simply promoted one of their relief pitchers to GM. Saves money that way.
Best signing ever by a Duracell GM: Al Kaline
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.4204 seconds, 53 querie(s) executed