They finished behind 3 of the best 5 teams in baseball; .500 in the toughest division in baseball. In any other div they probably finish first or second. Why are you harping on fourth place so much... oh that's right, you have some bizzare axe to grind.

Nonsense. If you want to whine about the Yankees and Red Sox, that's one thing, but the Jays have far more resources than the Rays. The idea that finishing .500 in the A.L. East, 10 games out of the wild card, was some Herculean task worthy of ignoring all other GMs for purposes of Exec of the Year is beyond silly.

If the Jays win in 2012 or '13, I'll be the first to credit Anthopoulos for formulating a plan and seeing it to fruition. Until then, I like my winners to, you know, win.

Nonsense. If you want to whine about the Yankees and Red Sox, that's one thing, but the Jays have far more resources than the Rays. The idea that finishing .500 in the A.L. East, 10 games out of the wild card, was some Herculean task worthy of ignoring all other GMs for purposes of Exec of the Year is beyond silly.

If the Jays win in 2012 or '13, I'll be the first to credit Anthopoulos for formulating a plan and seeing it to fruition. Until then, I like my winners to, you know, win.

So, what? You support the pitcher with the most W's for the Cy, and only think the MVP should go to players from playoff teams? GM's are just as much dependant on external factors as players are for those awards. The contracts they inherit, the farm system, budget constraints, desireablility of their location, strength other teams in their division etc.
It doesn't matter how the Rays got there, they are a legitimately great team right now, and the Jays have to deal with that reality. The fact that they didn't get there by 150m+ payrolls is irrelevant. The notion that AA could have hoped to compete this year against those three teams, considering the team he had, and the budget constraints, is just a pipe dream. And measuring the job he did against a pipe dream, is simply not a reasonable standard. It's the equivalent of complaining about Felix's W/L record, while ignoring the fact that he plays for the worst offenive team in the league.

Anyways, this is pointless. I'm out, have a good one.

So, what? You support the pitcher with the most W's for the Cy, and only think the MVP should go to players from playoff teams? GM's are just as much dependant on external factors as players are for those awards.

Ludicrous comparisons. No one votes for Cy Young or MVP based on potential, which is how you seem to want to award Exec of the Year. The Jays finished in 4th place in Ricciardi's last two seasons and in Anthopoulos' first two seasons. And yet I'm the bad guy with an "axe to grind" because I'd like the needle to move a little before bestowing Exec of the Year awards. Absurd.

The notion that AA could have hoped to compete this year against those three teams, considering the team he had, and the budget constraints, is just a pipe dream.

Perfect example of the selective accounting I've mentioned. You talk like the Jays were some cash-strapped 68-win basket case heading into 2011, when in fact they were coming off an 85-win season and, per media accounts, didn't spend all of the money they had available in 2011.

The Jays finished 2011 with an 81-81 win-loss record. Since we're supposed to believe in advanced metrics around here, let's have some fun with WAR:

Had Mike Napoli (5.5 bWAR) not been traded for a reliever, he would have been a net 4- or 5-win improvement over any of the Jays' C/1B/DH trio. That gets the Jays to 85 or 86 wins. With Napoli, the Jays are likely a better team in May or June, so maybe Lawrie comes up a little sooner and gets the Jays to 87 or 88 wins. Now, with Napoli and/or Lawrie, instead of having 55 wins at the deadline, maybe the Jays have 58 or 60 wins and make a stretch-run addition(s) rather than emptying their 'pen to get Rasmus (a double whammy in '11, given his -1 WAR in TOR and the +1 WAR of the RPs TOR traded). Add all of that up, and the Jays are sniffing 90 wins, if not north of 90, without mortgaging their future to the tune of one player (and only spending an additional $2-3M in cash).

Obviously, that's a whole lot of maybes, WAR is just theory, and no one foresaw the events of Sept. 2011. But the idea that 2011 was utterly hopeless for the Jays, or that the Jays had no path to contention in 2011, is ludicrous. Every player mentioned was right on their roster or in their system, and the Wells money was in the bank.

I think a reasonable compromise might be to say it's too early to rank AA.

He's given himself all kinds of flexibility and has shown he can pull off an imaginative trade or two, which inspires hope that he will use that flexibility well.

But for all his party-pooping and annoyance at seeing Jays fans happy and hopeful for the first time in ages, Mr. Kehoskie has a point. AA is still in the midst of creating "his team". I would argue early indications are positive and I'd be surprised if AA squanders the "big move" we're all expecting over the next couple years. But the fact is we're very much in the midst of it and any evaluation at this point is going to depend on future events and decisions.

I also think there may be a pro-AA bias because he's such an INTERESTING GM. He makes moves that you just WANT to be good because they're so damned exciting and seem to come out of nowhere.

I think maybe the correct debate to have isn't "is AA a good GM?", but "will AA be a good GM?" which at this point is somewhat unknowable, but my answer would be yes.

But for all his party-pooping and annoyance at seeing Jays fans happy and hopeful for the first time in ages, Mr. Kehoskie has a point.

Ha ha. I'm really not trying to be a party pooper. I lived in central New York for my first 31 years, during which Syracuse was the Jays' 3A affiliate for 25-plus years. The Jays seem to be doing a lot of interesting things and I'm glad Jays fans have newfound hope. Some of us here just seem to have a good-faith difference of opinion when it comes to awarding Exec of the Year.

I also think there may be a pro-AA bias because he's such an INTERESTING GM. He makes moves that you just WANT to be good because they're so damned exciting and seem to come out of nowhere.

I agree with his. A corollary is that Anthopoulos gets discussed much more than the average GM, which is probably why some people seem to think I have an "axe to grind" when discussing his moves. The only reason I talk about Anthopoulos so much is because 90 percent of these GM threads tend to get steered to Anthopoulos (as happened in this thread long before I arrived). I'd prefer to talk about Wade or Hoyer; much easier names to type.

Ha ha. I'm really not trying to be a party pooper.

It was a bit tongue in cheek (or perhaps just plain cheeky), so I'm glad you didn't take it too seriously. You never can tell sometimes on the internet.

The only reason I talk about Anthopoulos so much is because 90 percent of these GM threads tend to get steered to Anthopoulos (as happened in this thread long before I arrived). I'd prefer to talk about Wade or Hoyer; much easier names to type.

You can always talk about Rizzo -- five letters, including one you repeat.

What are non-Met fans' impressions of Sandy Alderson?

Imo Alderson had a respectable year but it was nothing special. In the 2010-11 offseason the FO brought in literally no one who played well but did for the most part avoid catastrophes like actually wanting Mike Jacobs and Gary Matthews Jr. on the team; Beltran was dealt for real value (that was expected, particularly given the Mets paid most of his salary and Beltran was having a HOF season with great durability, though Wheeler was a nice pickup, a little better than I expected). Dumping Rodriguez (as who would not have) showed minimum competence, with the Mets picking up his 2011 salary. The draft is by far the most important thing this FO will do in its first year+ so we won't have that to evaluate for a while. It's clear the Mets never intended to go after Reyes this offseason and would have done better trading him during a brilliant-looking, seemingly healthy season. The Wilpons may have given Alderson little choice, but Alderson has real leverage and part of a GMs job is to persuade ownership to do smart baseball things, and not simply for the sake of mere appearance hang onto a guy with several HOF seasons under his belt having yet one more of those HOF seasons. One small demerit.

Overall that looks like a "C" to me for Alderson, even with the couple of sensible, in-season moves. Nothing special, nothing grotesque. No Bartolo Colons or Freddy Garcias, or Mike Napoli for couch change, but also not mumbling to the faeries while the season expires leaving the Mets paying 17.5m for a reliever's 2012 season. Even Dayton Moore could have figured that one out. Mets fans seem to me to be so shell-shocked that mere competence gets ferocious applause, but if Alderson did something remarkable, or even significantly out of the ordinary, I'm not seeing it.

I also think there may be a pro-AA bias because he's such an INTERESTING GM.

This is a good point. Moezeliak had a good year but wasn't very interesting. A theoretical GM who drafted excellently and never ever traded would be pretty boring as well (Think Terry Ryan).

Andrew Friedman is interesting in how he'll trade guys like Garza at their peak. Epstein is interesting. Even bad GMs like Wade are interesting because of their mania for odd things, like Wade for RPs.

58 — I don't disagree with any of your assessment, but it seems a little unfair to slap a "C" on Alderson's first year given that he had very limited resources. The "C" seems to imply that Alderson should have been expected to make something out of nothing, which might be the mark of a great GM but isn't the baseline expectation for the job, especially given a mess like the one Alderson inherited. (I'm not saying he should get an "A" or "B" for holding serve. More like a "no grade" for not being able to make enough moves that can be graded fairly.)

I don't disagree with any of your assessment, but it seems a little unfair to slap a "C" on Alderson's first year given that he had very limited resources. The "C" seems to imply that Alderson should have been expected to make something out of nothing, which might be the mark of a great GM but isn't the baseline expectation for the job, especially given a mess like the one Alderson inherited.

But they finished fourth in their division!

@60: well, not expecting something out of nothing so much as a bit more than we got out of what he had to work with.

It might be grade inflation suggesting it, but I don't mean a "C" as an insult. It means to me that you showed up, you did the work, the essential work of the course. To me that's getting value for a valuable player (Beltran), or doing the research and behind-the-scenes work necessary to not saddling the team with FRoddy's crazy 2012 option, or picking up enough slightly above replacement level players with the few dollars Alderson had to work with to put a floor of 'not completely awful' under nearly all the positions. As unispired as the deal for Capuano turned out to be, it was one of a number of what I expected would be Alderson's signature move in the offseason: basic competence. Instead of actively seeking out players like Mike Jacobs and Gary Matthews, Jr., as Minaya did, Alderson picked up Scott Hairston for around what Minaya paid (AAV) for Matthews. Admittedly Hairston was worth all of 0.2 bWAR in 145 PAs, but that's one win over a season where Minaya was getting a negative win, or worse, in a similar situation.

Capuano turned out to be the rotation equivalent of Hairston. His 82 ERA+ in 2011 was nothing remotely to write home about, but he gave the Mets 30 starts out of the fifth slot and, more important, kept the Mets from running 2011's equivalent of Ollie Perez and John Maine to the mound for the bulk of a season. My longwinded point is that Alderson did just fine at avoiding complete dogs and wasting the little the Mets had on truly bad ballplayers. That's a skill, but not a particulary sophisticated skill and at the same time it seems a basic component of the job description: identifying cheap ballplayers who won't hurt the club and who have a shot at being better than replacement level.

It might be, too, that I give credit to the manager and coaching staff someone else would give to the FO. I see the modest and encouraging successes of Duda, Thole, Turner, and Tejada as belonging to Collins and friends. The Mets turned to Turner only after the FOs first choice, Emaus, quickly soured, and their second choice, Murphy, quickly and predictably vanished in a puff of infield dust. That Turner is acceptable at 2B for a rebuilding team not going anywhere and as long as he's cheap isn't a success for the FO. They lucked out after their preferences crapped out.

If someone prizes competence I can see them valuing Alderson's work more highly than I do. I just think that getting real value for Beltran, dumping FRod in return for not much while picking up his salary, and signing the Mets best pitcher in 2010 to the 2+/8 deal everybody was hoping for is no more than that: basic competence. To NOT get a solid prospect for an inexpensive HOFer in the middle of a HOF season, to not dump a ludicrous vesting option, and to not sign the team's best pitcher to a truly modest deal when the rotation was thin as Kate Moss on a binge, well, to fail to do any of those things would have demonstrated genuine incompetence.

I agree, though, that to date the FO has not been truly tested.

I just noticed poking around B-R that 5 of the 26 first round picks in the 1980 draft eventually played for the Blue Jays, and a sixth would later manage the Blue Jays, but none of them were actually drafted by the Blue Jays. That would make a good trivia question.

What are non-Met fans' impressions of Sandy Alderson?

He's a Selig stooge assigned to make sure the free money train stays on-course for the enrichment of Bud's cronies.

3. Brian Cashman, Yankees (5 in ‘10, 6 in ‘09, NR in ‘08, 8 in ‘07) . It was a banner year for the Yankees’ baseball operations department, even if it didn’t end with a new banner to fly over Yankee Stadium.

I think Mr. Cashman is excellent at his job, and I'm glad he's in the position he's in. Having said that, the Igawa contract is the worst baseball signing of my lifetime and with a millstone of that size around his neck I don't see how he could possibly rank so highly.

He's a Selig stooge assigned to make sure the free money train stays on-course for the enrichment of Bud's cronies.

Sure, but doesn't that describe everyone in baseball (or the world) not associated with the Yankees?

I can't really see how, 10 mil for a 21 year old free agent SS, who will be effectively be under contract with the team for 8-9 years, is a bad idea.

Primarily because the track record of Cuban position players is so awful, especially with a guy who was only a marginal hitter to begin with. (Jury is still out, though... Hech had a little cameo in Vegas that, despite it being a cameo and despite it being Vegas, was high quality. It'll take him time regardless.)

But $10 million, at the end of the day, so what? AA's earned that scratch himself, by managing a shrinking payroll quite well.

I think AA's performance as GM is really good - maybe not top 5, but arguably. But to get there, you have to separate out what he's done from what ownership has done to him, which is to constrain him at almost every turn. He's made some unforced errors, but he hits lots of winners, which is exactly the kind of guy a team like Toronto needs.

I think player development looms as a big problem, though. The last regime were weaker on signings, weaker on trades, but stronger on player development. AA's method will probably work better if he gets some bullets for his gun.

That's up to Rogers.

I hated the idea of making AA the GM at the beginning. Now, I'm glad he's there.