In my opinion, you are only ignorant if you try and tell someone how to do their job if you aren’t qualified to do that job.

So, how does being told what to do in player personnel decisions by Mitch Williams fit into the equation?

I don’t know Daniels, but the way that Michael Young was treated there was just wrong. Young changed positions four times for the good of the team. He became an All-Star at three different positions, then demanded a trade after the signing of Adrian Beltre.

Wasn't Ryan there too when this was happening?

In my opinion, you are only ignorant if you...

...wag your head on national television to try to get the gears turning while you come up with something really i'norant to say.

Why should we assume that Nolan Ryan knows how to evaluate baseball talent? What is it about his record that tells us he must be good at it?

I mean, this is obviously too easy, but isn't Williams telling us we can't criticize a President of the US unless we're qualified to hold the office?

I don’t think I’m going to get to many people calling me to do their taxes or represent them in court.

Frankly Mitch, I wouldn't call you to mow my lawn.

This is dumb even by Williams' standards.

The Rangers had put together a really good team before Nolan Ryan showed up.

Is it confirmed Ryan was pushed out? I just saw a blurb on the ESPN crawl and I assumed Ryan was retiring.

Where I tend to lose respect for them is when they decide they know how to evaluate baseball talent better than people like Nolan Ryan

Because Hall of Fame players generally make the best talent evaluators in baseball. Why, front offices are full of them.

Jon Daniels made some peculiar moves early in his career - he traded away Adrian Gonzalez (after Gonzalez' breakout 2005 in Oklahoma City) for Akinori Otsuka and Adam Eaton, and he included Chris Young in the deal as well.

The development of the Rangers into annual contenders tracks much better to Ryan's tenure with the club than Daniels'.

As I said in some other thread, I have no idea how to apportion credit for the Rangers' 2009-12 success. As Shooty points out, they were assembling a good team all along, and Daniels was there two years before Ryan arrived, so he has actually more experience evaluating baseball talent than Ryan does, and he got things in place for the pennant years. On the other hand, the team got sharply better as soon as Ryan got there [Edit: Coke to MCoA], particularly their pitching: but for that, Mike Maddux deserves credit, and I doubt that Ron Washington has been irrelevant either, or bunches of other people I've scarcely heard of, I'm sure. I would be greatly dismayed to see Ryan go, because I think he's a terrific public figure, and his departure would be a PR disaster. But I would imagine Daniels knows every bit as much about running a baseball club.

Meanwhile, except for the graf about how hard it is to control pitches, on which topic I would certainly trust Mitch Williams, everything in TFA is pretty much wrong. Michael Young was treated perfectly, and with exactly the right unsentimental approach, over the past few years in Arlington: displacing him from short to third to DH/UT improved the team defense, and when he started to hurt the team offense, they sent him to Philadelphia. Young's feelings may have been hurt, but he busted his ### on the field and the team won, no matter where he was playing. Whoever masterminded that transition was brilliant.

And "take away fans from the Dallas Cowboys"? The Cowboys have averaged 700,000 a year since they moved into the Stadium, by far the best attendance in the NFL and by far the best per-game draw in any American pro sport, except maybe NASCAR. Give me a break.

Jon Daniels made some peculiar moves early in his career - he traded away Adrian Gonzalez (after Gonzalez' breakout 2005 in Oklahoma City) for Akinori Otsuka and Adam Eaton, and he included Chris Young in the deal as well.

Travis Hafner too (for Einar Diaz), Jon Danks (for broke-down Brandon McCarthy) and Alfonso Soriano for pennies on the dollar (Brad Wilkerson and others).

Yes, that was a move that didn't work out, but why mention only that deal?

When did he swap Teixeira for a huge bag of goodies from Atlanta? Oh, yeah, it was July 31, 2007...or six months before Ryan joined the Rangers.

Some might chalk up the Gonzalez deal as a poor move by a pup and then look at subsequent deals to see whether they rode a learning curve.

What great players have been really good in front office management? Al Kaline?

I don't doubt the idea that experience playing is one among several useful ways to develop your abilities at management but I doubt that excellence is a useful tracker. Certainly sports are full of journeymen/scrub types who became excellent either in front office or on-field management.

Some might chalk up the Gonzalez deal as a poor move by a pup and then look at subsequent deals to see whether they rode a learning curve.

One might, but as AG#1F points out, it was part of a significant pattern.

What great players have been really good in front office management? Al Kaline?

John McGraw? I know, sort of cheating. But he really was the primary talent scout and effective GM for his clubs.

What great players have been really good in front office management? Al Kaline?

Al Rosen was a pretty good front office guy with the Giants.

It is hilarious that Williams is arguing that the head of baseball operations shouldn't be allowed to make baseball decisions. Andrew Friedman of the Rays should get his hand holed as well, apparently. So should Jack Zduriencik, who was a scouting director but never played in the majors, only lasting two years in a brief minor league career. Only men of Ryan's nature should be allowed to make the big boy decisions.

Who have been the Rangers' key players?

Hamilton: Acquired in 2007 shortly before Ryan joined.
Kinsler: Drafted in 2003 by Hart
Beltre: Signed as a FA in 2011
Cruz: Acquired in 2006
Andrus: Acquired in 2007
Harrison: Acquired in 2007
Feliz: Acquired in 2007
Holland: Drafted in 2006
Darvish: Signed in 2012
Young: Acquired in 2000 (was that Hart?)
Wilson: Drafted in 2001
Napoli: Acquired in 2011

Daniels deserves a lot of credit, although he also inherited a team with a lot of talent (and threw some of it away). Ryan deserves credit too, but it's hard to say how much.

Why should we assume that Nolan Ryan knows how to evaluate baseball talent? What is it about his record that tells us he must be good at it?

About the only thing I can think of in Nolan's favor on this one is that Randy Johnson gives a lot of credit to Ryan to helping Randy have his breakthrough season in 1993. According to Johnson, he spent some time talking pitching and mechanics with Ryan (and pitching coach Tom House)at the end of the '92 season which Johnson credits for vastly improved control in '93 and beyond. Yes, you heard that right - Randy Johnson credits the all time leader in most batters walked for helping Johnson improve his control. As seen here.

Speaking of Tom House - as an aside, if you ever get a chance to read "Diamond Appraised", I'd recommend it. House goes nose to nose with analyst Craig Wright on a variety of baseball topics - Wright from the SABR-analytical side and House from the "inside baseball" viewpoint - but I think it's pretty intelligently discussed on both sides. Better than your average read IMHO.

Wasn't Hank Greenberg a good executive?

What great players have been really good in front office management? Al Kaline?

Michael Jord....errr.

In the NFL, Ozzie Newsome.

Al Rosen was the only name that came to mind in baseball. Was Joe Cronin good in Boston? Seems like they were good when he took over, but go mediocre pretty fast.

Daniels deserves a lot of credit, although he also inherited a team with a lot of talent (and threw some of it away). Ryan deserves credit too, but it's hard to say how much.

There was a lot of discussion of how Ryan overhauled the development program for Rangers pitchers (mostly people talking about pitch counts, but that was only part of a larger reform). So it may be that the development of pitchers acquired by Daniels should probably be partly attributed to Ryan.

I'll admit that the transformation of Jon Daniels into a saber-darling GM is sort of weird to me. Back in 2006, dude was a punch line. Clearly that was wrong, and he's done well since then, but I still tend to look for other explanations for the Rangers' success.

I don't think Daniels is a saber darling. It's more that people in the saber community are a little skeptical of the CW in the media that Ryan turned the team around. They both deserve credit.

And while Daniels made some bad trades, he also made some very good ones.

What great players have been really good in front office management?

Jerry West.

Jerry West.

Joe Dumars was and then wasn't. Not sure what the CW is about him now.

Travis Hafner too (for Einar Diaz), Jon Danks (for broke-down Brandon McCarthy) and Alfonso Soriano for pennies on the dollar (Brad Wilkerson and others).

The Hafner deal was well before Jon Daniels took over as g.m.

Danks for McCarthy didn't work out, although at the time, McCarthy wasn't "broke down" -- he was considered one of the top young starting pitching prospects in the game.

Soriano was coming off a pair of two year seasons and was in his walk year when he left, and the Rangers dealt him to make room for Ian Kinsler. Wilkerson ended up being toast, but the reality is that there was not much of a market for Soriano, as the Nationals discovered when they tried (unsuccessfully) to move him at the trade deadline.

That said, Daniels made two really bad moves in his first year or so on the job -- the Gonzalez trade and the Danks/McCarthy trade. He learned from those and has headed up one of the best front offices in the game since then.

#9 I used to post the all-time teams of some of the best players of all time, just to underline the point being made.

Worth noting that both Walter Johnson and Babe Ruth picked Hal Chase as the greatest first-baseman of all time. I could understand Sisler over Gehrig or Foxx, but Chase? His justification:

[some people] "will feel that I should pick Lou Gehrig over Chase, (but Chase) was so much better than anybody else that I ever saw on first base that - to me - it was no contest."

Ruth also had Herb Pennock on his all-time team. Ty Cobb picked Buck Weaver as his greatest 3B (actually Cobb picked two different teams, decade apart and Weaver was only on one). Ruth also picked Ray Schalk as his catcher. (Walter Johnson picked 2. Bill Dickey and Johnny Kling. Kling wasn't a terrible player but if you're picking Dickey, Cochrane is in the mix and anybody who'd rather have Kling than Cochrane ... is on the short list for greatest pitcher of all time)

On a related note, Roger Clemens absolute flipped out when the Jays moved Ed ####### Sprague.

I'll admit that the transformation of Jon Daniels into a saber-darling GM is sort of weird to me. Back in 2006, dude was a punch line. Clearly that was wrong, and he's done well since then, but I still tend to look for other explanations for the Rangers' success.

The only real catastrophes under his tenure were the Gonzales-Eaton debacle (utterly indefensible) and the Danks trade, and they both took place 6+ years ago. I'd argue that they're balanced out by the Teixeira haul, the Josh Hamilton challenge trade, and maybe even the Napoli steal. Otherwise, he's done well on the things that we'd expect a general manager to do. The farm system has consistently been strong with a steady pipeline of prospects. The organization has done a good job of turning those prospects into successful MLB players. And his FA signings have generally been very good; he milked great short term production from Milton Bradley and Vlad Guerrero, Adrian Beltre has been a huge success, Colby Lewis was a steal, and Yu Darvish is looking very promising. His FA failures have generally been small potatoes that haven't really impacted the bottom line (Roy Oswalt). No Carl Crawfords or John Lackeys on his watch so far.

I think the narrative of "shaky at first but good once he got his legs under him" is supported by a fair amount of evidence.

There was a minor kerfuffle at the end of Johnny Damon's tenure in KC when he was "playing GM" and advocating the Royals pick up Paul Sorrento. I don't think Sorrento ever played in a big league game after that point.

I think the narrative of "shaky at first but good once he got his legs under him" is supported by a fair amount of evidence.

So, there's still hope Dayton Moore can be a genius, right?

I'll admit that the transformation of Jon Daniels into a saber-darling GM is sort of weird to me. Back in 2006, dude was a punch line. Clearly that was wrong, and he's done well since then, but I still tend to look for other explanations for the Rangers' success.

He was a punchline at the time in large part because he was under 30 and viewed by some as Buck Showalter's puppet. There are those who think the Gonzalez/Young trade was championed by Buck, although Daniels has taken responsibility publicly for that move.

The bottom line is that he was probably promoted to the g.m. job before he was really ready, made a couple of bad moves while learning on the job, and has grown into the job and become one of the really good g.m.s in the game. The fact that he wasn't a good g.m. the first year or two while he was learning the ropes shouldn't, I don't think, suggest that we need to find an explanation other than Daniels and his team for the success now.

So, there's still hope Dayton Moore can be a genius, right?

There is infinite hope. But not for the Royals.

Texas had a decent farm, and a decent major league team when Daniels got there. Soriano was a clunker for him, though not as costly as Eaton.
He most probably did a lot of hard work, but 2 absolute miracles happened for him to stay a GM, and become a successful one.

a) He got a star starting SS, closer / potential top of the rotation arm, another rotation arm and a starting catcher for Teixeira. They should be sending bottles of champagne over to Schuerholz every year. That has to be the baseball version of the Herschel Walker trade.

b) Absolutely super lucked into getting Hamilton, and having Hamilton perform at an obscene level. The Reds got lucky first, but they threw away their chance at it. Daniels should be given lot of credit for trading for Hamilton, but even he could not have imagined Hamilton's sustained renaissance.

At some point, Texas started getting some pitching and defence, which drove their success. But Daniels doesn't get to enjoy any of that without the above two happening.

The bottom line is that he was probably promoted to the g.m. job before he was really ready, made a couple of bad moves while learning on the job, and has grown into the job and become one of the really good g.m.s in the game. The fact that he wasn't a good g.m. the first year or two while he was learning the ropes shouldn't, I don't think, suggest that we need to find an explanation other than Daniels and his team for the success now.

It should also be noted that Gonzalez wasn't some sure thing. The Rangers were already his second organization, as the team that made him the overall #1 pick had already given up on him at age 20 for a relief pitcher. Gonzalez was coming off an umimpressive .719 OPS year in the hitter-friendly Texas League, and hadn't impressed at all in about 150 MLB plate appearances. He was blocked at 1B by Teixeira and the '05 Rangers were 12th in the league in ERA, so the team was pitching starved.

It was a bad trade, but its not as stupid as it looks now that Gonzo has become an All-Star.

The Reds got lucky first, but they threw away their chance at it.

You could also say the Rays and Cubs threw away their chance too.

There is infinite hope. But not for the Royals.

(pokes head up)

I kind of like their chances this year.

(runs away)

It should also be noted that Gonzalez wasn't some sure thing. The Rangers were already his second organization, as the team that made him the overall #1 pick had already given up on him at age 20 for a relief pitcher. Gonzalez was coming off an umimpressive .719 OPS year in the hitter-friendly Texas League, and hadn't impressed at all in about 150 MLB plate appearances. He was blocked at 1B by Teixeira and the '05 Rangers were 12th in the league in ERA, so the team was pitching starved.

It was a bad trade, but its not as stupid as it looks now that Gonzo has become an All-Star.

This is a good point. At the time of the trade, most Texas fans were more upset about trading Chris Young, who'd at least demonstrated some success pitching in Texas and was, in fact, better than Adam Eaton had ever been or ever would be. Watching Adrian Gonzales turn into an All-Star was just salt for the wound.

Branch Rickey did pretty well ..

I don't think it was obvious that Gonzalez was going to become an All-Star at the time of the trade, but in retrospect the big qualitative leap in Gonzalez's production and probably underlying skill came in 2005, when he was still in the Rangers org. His 2006 is right in line with his 2005, just adding some normal development for a young power hitter. I don't know what changed for Gonzalez between 2004 and 2005, but that's the sort of thing you do expect a team's GM not to miss.

It boils down to the fact that people like Nolan Ryan, and they don't want to see him forced out. People like celebrities; that's how they get famous in the first place. It's cooler to root for a baseball team run by a celebrity than it is to root for a team run by the usual group of faceless nobodies.

This is how celebrities get elected to public office, too. "Let's see...I can vote for the celebrity, or I can vote for the tub of tapioca pudding. Dude, having a movie star governor will be so awesome...!"

Branch Rickey did pretty well ..

Rickey played in the majors for the Browns and Highlanders.

Jamey Newberg today chronicled scads of different columnists speaking on the Daniels/Ryan issue. Sample:

"Are the Rangers trying to freeze out Nolan Ryan? The short answer is no, that’s not the intent, even if the eventual outcome is essentially the same should Ryan perceive that the promotions of Jon Daniels and Rick George have effectively cut him out of the loop, and he becomes nothing more than an iconic figurehead. The majority of the heavy lifting has been done by Daniels. He made the trades, the drafts and the signings that built the Rangers into the envy of baseball. Ryan’s contribution hasn’t been as great as most fans like to believe, but it’s not insignificant, either. Just as he did as a player, Ryan gave the Rangers credibility as team president, a title he no longer owns."

— Kevin Sherrington, Dallas Morning News

"Ryan’s shadow is so large than Daniels hasn’t gotten the credit he deserves. I’m not sure whether Andrew Friedman or Billy Beane or Brian Sabean or someone else is baseball’s best general manager, but there’s no way to have that discussion without including Jon Daniels... Daniels built a great baseball organization. He’d done a lot of the heavy lifting before Ryan arrived, and that’s the point a lot of people miss."

- Richard Justice, MLB.com

"To put it simply: The reason the Texas Rangers gave Jon Daniels a new title the other day had more to do with assistant GM Thad Levine than it did with Nolan Ryan."

— Buster Olney, ESPN

Off the top of my head, the people that come to mind when I try and think of a legendary GM:

Branch Rickey - 120G in the majors, 120 in the minors over
Pat Gillick - 164 GP in the minors, done at 25
Lee MacPhail - never played organized ball, nepotism
Ed Barrow - never played, managed first
Sam Pollock - never played
Bill Torrey - never played
Lou Lamoriello - played in college

All the NFL GM's that I can think of are more famous as coaches.

I'm sure there are some who played more than that, and obviously you need to be very familiar with the game, but it's not like this is a new thing.

He probably doesn't rise to the level of "legendary" GM, but near as I can tell John Schuerholz didn't play a single game of minor league ball.

He probably doesn't rise to the level of "legendary" GM, but near as I can tell John Schuerholz didn't play a single game of minor league ball.

He made sure his kid did though.

[some people] "will feel that I should pick Lou Gehrig over Chase, (but Chase) was so much better than anybody else that I ever saw on first base that - to me - it was no contest."

Is this one of those "He looked like he should be better than he actually was" kinds of things?

Frank Cashen wasn't too shabby as a GM and according to B-R he never played a game in the majors or minors.

Bob Howsam never played pro ball. Sandy Alderson never played pro ball.

Stan Musial won a Championship as GM of the Cardinals, although I don't know how much he had to do with that as that was his only season as GM.

Serious question - when the Rangers started becoming real contenders - it seemed to me the biggest difference was a dramatic improvement in the pitching - when you've got pitchers getting their ERAs down into the 3s when you're playing in that hitter's paradise of a stadium, you're doing something right.

So who is really responsible for the improvement? Is it Ryan's influence, the pitching coach, or some combination of improved luck/BABIP or something like that?

cw on dumars isn't great. drafting drummond might help him keep his job, though.

i honestly don't remember daniels as laughingstock - and i think i generally pay attention to that sort of thing.

So should Jack Zduriencik

Yeah, but Z really should have someone else making his moves for him. Because he's terrible at it. He might have been a great scouting director, but he's not much better than Buzzy Bavasi's idiot kid in the big chair.