BTF Awards - 2005 Executive of the Year
Chicago White Sox General Manager Kenny Williams is the 2005 Major League Executive of the Year, according to a poll of the Baseball Think Factory’s scholars-in-residence. Williams was named to five of the eight ballots cast, finishing first on four ballots and second on another for a total of 23 points.
Cleveland General Manager Mark Shapiro finished in second place in the balloting with 13 points on five ballots.
Atlanta’s John Schuerholz was named to only two ballots, finishing first on both, for 10 points and third place, while Milwaukee’s Doug Melvin earned nine points with three second place votes.
Oakland’s Billy Beane and Detroit’s Dave Dombrowski tied for fifth with five points. The Yankee’s Brian Cashman, who finished eighth in the balloting right behind Toronto’s J.P. Ricciardi, was the only other G.M. to be named to more than one ballot. For various reasons, many BTF contributors were reluctant to cast ballots for Executive of the Year.
In the fifth year of his term, Williams constructed a White Sox team that won the A.L. Central for the first time since 2000, led the American League in wins, and then won eleven of twelve post-season contests to secure the franchise’s first World Championship since 1917.
Over the course of his tenure, Williams has received a good deal of scorn from BTF contributors, but he needs to be applauded for his contributions to the 2005 White Sox. Going into 2005, Williams faced several crises: the defection of his all-star right fielder; the free agency of his 30-homer shortstop; an offensive and defensive hole at catcher; an uncertain starting rotation; a bullpen that lacked both depth and reliability; and the need to hold the line on his payroll. Further, Williams and manager Ozzie Guillen believed that the team needed to improve their team’s defense and “balance” its offensive attack.
Williams’ boldest move of the off-season, trading left fielder Carlos Lee for outfielder Scott Podsednik, reliever Luis Vizcaino and some payroll room, helped solve four of his concerns. Podsednik teamed with free agent signee Jermaine Dye to completely replace the team’s 2004 offensive production from their corner outfielders, while adding some much need on-base percentage and left-handed at bats to a lineup severely lacking both. While erratic, Vizcaino, along with free agent signee Dustin Hermanson and Bobby Jenks, and fantastic waiver wire claim, contributed to one of the major league’s best bullpens. Furthermore, the trade and the removal of Magglio Ordonez’s burdensome 2004 contract freed the organization to seize several solid players when they became available.
Japanese import Tadahito Iguchi, a second baseman, teamed with Juan Uribe to replace the production that the squad received from their 2004 keystone combo while bettering the team’s defense. Payroll flexibility also allowed Williams to snatch up A.J. Pierzynski when he was cut loose, which helped 2005 team match the production that the 2004 team had received from their backstops, while adding an important left-handed bat to the lineup. Additionally, two of Williams’s 2004 mid-season moves contributed greatly to the 2005 White Sox success. His acquisitions of pitcher Freddy Garcia for three good young players and pitcher Jose Contreras for Esteban Loaiza gave this year’s rotation reliability, promise and cost certainty. While no one should deny that fortune smiled on the 2005 White Sox with the unexpectedly rapid development of Jenks, Neal Cotts and Jon Garland, Kenny Williams should receive the lion’s share of the credit for the 2005 White Sox successes.
Cleveland General Manager Mark Shapiro’s investments continued to pay dividends in 2005. Although the Indians struggled through the first several months of the 2005 season, they surged after the all-star break thanks to Shapiro’s acquisitions. The team finished second in the American League in scoring after August thanks to Shapiro’s sharp trading, which netted the Tribe Travis Hafner (for Einar Diaz), Coco Crisp (for 80 innings of Chuck Finley), Grady Sizemore (part of the package for Bartolo Colon) and Ben Broussard (for Russ Branyan).
Shapiro also made some tremendous low-risk free agent signings, including Casey Blake in 2002 (after he’d been waived by three organizations), Ronnie Belliard in 2004 (deemed a liability in the clubhouse, on the field and at the dinner table), and Aaron Boone during the 2004 season (coming off an serious knee injury). Shapiro’s contributions also helped the team finish first in the AL in ERA after the all-star break.
He also took advantage of the market to acquire starters Kevin Millwood (as a free agent after a disappointing 2004 season) and Cliff Lee (in a mid-season 2002 trade when Montreal was inexplicably desperate for Colon) and relievers Bobby Howry, Bob Wickman, Scott Sauerbeck, Rafael Betancourt and Matt Miller as free agents when their values were at their nadir. Shapiro’s rebuilding program in Cleveland has succeeded tremendously and should begin producing a string of divisional titles in the near future.
Atlanta’s John Schuerholz and Milwaukee’s Doug Melvin continued to add to their resumes in 2005.
Schuerholz’s legendary career, which now includes 16 divisional and two world championships, was further burnished by his 2005 accomplishments. Faced with the loss of his best offensive player and sixty percent of his rotation to free agency, Schuerholz clotted the flow by dipping into his rich farm system – first, to acquire starter Tim Hudson and then, when free agent signees Raul Mondesi and Brian Jordan proved unable to handle their designated duties, to assume a large share of the team’s offense. By season’s end, Schuerholz’s system had produced contributors Adam LaRoche (25 years old), Jeff Francoeur (21), Ryan Langerhans (25), Wilson Betemit (24) and Brian McCann (21) and introduced up-and-comers Kelly Johnson (23) and Andy Marte (21) to the big leagues while fielding a division winner.
When injuries and ineffectiveness decimated his rotation and bullpen, Schuerholz turned to rookie Blain Boyer (23) and then traded for Kyle Farnsworth to bolster his bullpen and stuck his magnificent waiver acquisition Jorge Sosa to stabilize the rotation.
In Milwaukee, Doug Melvin, who produced three division titles in Texas during the 1990s, helped the Brewers to their first .500-or-better season since 1992. Like Schuerholz, Melvin turned to his strong minor league system to fashion his team’s successes. His system produced the core of the next fine Brewers team with the promotion of Rickie Weeks (22-years old), J.J. Hardy (22), Prince Fielder (21) and Bill Hall (25). Melvin also had an eye for acquiring cheap talent. In the spirit of his masterful past free agent signings, like Matt Wise and Doug Davis, Melvin took advantage of market inefficiencies to secure starter Tomo Ohka (for an expendable non-entity) and Jose Capellan (for an over-priced and over-valued closer).
Other general Managers also merit our praise for their work in 2005. Oakland’s Billy Beane continued his masterful work. He traded his two best pitchers before the season but reaped immediate contributions from starter Danny Haren and reliever Kiko Calero in the swaps. He promoted right fielder Nick Swisher, first baseman Dan Johnson, and starter Joe Blanton and closer Huston Street from the team’s farm system to solve other team problems. In the midst of a rebuilding program and with the eighth lowest payroll in all of baseball, Beane gave the Athletics the tools to win 88 games and compete into September.
In Detroit, Dave Dombrowski equipped the Tigers with solid rookies like Craig Monroe, Chris Shelton and Curtis Granderson and enough veterans to keep them around .500 into the last week of August. And Brian Cashman of the Yankees deserves praise for his mid-season salvaging his team’s chances.
When off-season acquisitions Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, Paul Quantrill and Tony Womack all floundered early, Cashman mined into the nearly-barren upper reaches of his farm system to strike gold with rookies Robinson Cano and Chien-Ming Wang and journeyman Aaron Small. He then traded for Shawn Chacon, who righted the teams listing rotation.
Toronto’s J.P. Ricciardi, St. Louis Walt Jocketty and the Los Angeles Angels’ Bill Stoneman also did a fine job in their 2005 roles.

Anthony Giacalone
Posted: November 02, 2005 at 12:52 AM |
47 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
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.
1. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder. Posted: November 02, 2005 at 02:12 AM (#1715297)Who were the voters if you don't me asking. I don;t want to know how they voted I just want to know who gets to vote.
The only move Cashman deserves praise for there is the trade for Chacon. Maybe you could give him Small but I don't think anyone will argue that his success was anything more than an extreme fluke. How does promoting minor leaugers factor into an award for this year? That praise belongs to the year that they were drafted. Anyway, it's still crazy to vote for Cashman just because the Wright, Pavano, and Womack signings were so bad that nothing he did could make up for them.
The draft ballot that I had didn't have Executive of the Year on it, so I didn't vote; it wasn't until it was too late that I realized we were even voting for an EOY.
Had I voted, I'd have voted for Schuerholz, Williams, and Doug Melvin, in that order.
-- MWE
I don't know, Vinay. I have real problems with KW but I honestly believe that his moves gave the team five or so extra wins this season, which is a pretty good mark. I expected Jocketty to get more support.
As far as Cashman goes, I couldn't vote for him since his good in-season moves only made the team's horrible off-season moves less terminal. That said, determining when and which guys to bring up from the minors is a key job for a GM. Every year a dozen GMs leave guys in the minors while slackers remain on their rosters. For example, KW did a rather awful job of using his minor leaguers this year (aside from Jenks). He refused to use Gload, despite the fact that he needed DH ABs and shuttled Harris away (in favor of a rapidly fading Ozuna) when he could contributed a great deal and then played T.I.M.O. continually even though Anderson or Rosy Brown (although he would have had to make room for him on the 40-man) would have been much better choices. Cashman's moves took a lot of guts.
1 Schuerholz
2 Williams
3 Stoneman
I voted and I had it 1) Shapiro, 2) Melvin, 3) Beane. After reading Tony's explanation, I think I could probably have been convinced to drop Williams in there also. I tend to like executives that build for the long-term as opposed to the one and done, and I think those three did more to set up a long run of success than anyone. I had Schuerholz 4th.
yes, i agree completely, which is my point. you're voting for Shapiro as best exec of 2005 based on moves he made a few years ago? it's silly. furthermore, we can't completely judge the moves any of these guys made this season for a few more years.
i have no problem with trying to evaluate GMs, or even trying to rank them, based on several years of data. but an annual award is meaningless, given the nature of the job.
The thing that impresses me about Schuerholz is that he maintains a nice balance between the short-term focus and long-term focus, which is (IMO) the largest reason why the Braves continue to be successful. I think you need the balance; you have to remain successful in the short-term while reloading for the long term. The Braves have done that better than anyone.
-- MWE
And can the defensiveness as well. Is that what this site is morphing into? A dual class site where criticism invites (from the upper class) invitations to go #### yourself or stop reading the article?
My purpose in a piece like this is to highlight the factors that might have gone into voting for a particular GM. It is not to judge whether that vote was good or bad. I will stand by that methodology. If you look, you will notice that I didn't criticize any of the GMs (except in the most passing fashion) for their bad decisions. This was supposed to highlight their accomplishments. I think that Cashman did a nice job in the areas that I listed.
I believe my ballot was Shapiro, Williams and Schuerholz.
1. John Schuerholz
2. Mark Shapiro
3. Kenny Williams
s/
What he did with Granderson- keeping him down until he appeared more ready, and playing Nook Logan, who was terrific defensively in a big park was a great move. The deal for Polonco was a masterstroke and will pay off for years. I don't think there was a more effective mid-season deal.
While I was shocked by Carlos Pena's demotion early in the year it worked out. Shelton was superior to what could have been expected from Pena, he's younger, and when Pena was callled back up late, he excelled.
Giving Brandon Inge the 3B job was another great move. While he didn't appear to be capable of a full-time job, he was surprisingly very effective at the plate. I don't have any read on his defense.
The top 4 starters are cheap, young, and threw over 800 IP combined, with Bonderman, wisely, throwing the fewest.
No.
If they do, then they should be recognized for it. I'm not saying that we did a good job of it, but surely we could, in theory, measure how much a GM contributed to his team's winning in any given year.
I'm not sure at all that one could in any reasonable way. Problem number one is that the job of a GM (or a field manager, for that matter) is far too complex and cryptic for us to evaluate as "best" from the outside. We can see the transactions made and put them in various columns, and perhaps even assign a value to each one, but we can only get a keyhole view of it. At the same time, while we can break player performances into annual periods, the GM's job does not lend itself to that. The GM's job is not just to add a certain amount of wins to the baseline in a given year, and I think the Executive of the Year award (and Manager of the Year) is generally a "Most Improved Team" award. I find that banal.
We can have discussions about the highest impact transaction(s) of the year, both positive and negative, and congratulate and condemn the GMs responsible for them, I guess. And for Kenny Williams, we can chalk up quite a few things in the positive column for 2005. But how many people who voted for Kenny Williams really think he's even a "good" GM on the whole? I don't. Maybe my keyhole view is wrong, and Williams will prove it over the coming years. We'll see. My keyhole view of John Schuerholz from 10 years ago was pretty critical, and I'd say that time has proven it distorted. Anyway, Kenny WIlliams has his reward for what happened in 2005, and I don't think an Executive of the Year award tells me anything at all about his performance/ability/record with respect to Shapiro or Schuerholz. This is trying to draw lines in the sand that don't need to be drawn.
1. Kenny Williams
2. John Schuerholz
3. Mark Shapiro
1) Kenny Williams
2) Doug Melvin
3) Billy Beane
Maybe Danny will realize I'm not a Beane basher.
Fair point, however I can see justifying an award like this based on an executive having a long-term plan and actually sticking to it over the course of several years. Shapiro certainly has done that in several ways, the most notable to me being that he did not trade away any of his young players to try to make a run at the AL Central in 2005. As it turns out, they ended up making a run anyway.
Still don't get the Aaron Boone thing though...
Also worth noting in regards to Millwood, most teams weren't offering much to him based on his injury history, but Shapiro structured the contract with very little risk to the team, and mostly incentives based on performance. He turned out to be the best pitcher on the staff this season.
Send the check to...
Main reason he got the top vote from me.
I see a three fold problem for Schuerholz in this sort of ranking: (a) he's a victim of his own success (call it the Mantle or Mays syndrome), (b) he actually made some questionable moves this year, e.g., Jordan and Kolb, and (c) it's hard to separate his contribution from Cox (and maybe Mazzone).
And why are people complaining about the methodology they used for this award? What a waste of time.
If owners were in the mix, I'd have probably thrown in my vote for Attanasio.
Actually (I checked) the real Andere isn't, which is probably an oversight, but an insignificant one since the real Andere has written a sum total of two articles and doesn't have the keys, to his knowledge. So, no I did not vote, probably wasn't asked to (unless I missed the email) and I probably wouldn't have.
However, I am quite sure that anyone with a mortar board is entitled to voice all of the dissent they want. I would, however, speculate that the low turnout reflects a real lack of interest in the Executive of the Year award, which I futher speculate to come from a common lack of faith in it meaning anything.
I also hope I didn't come across as dismissive of Anthony's well-written and interesting discussion of the accomplishments of the various GMs in the intro. I have no problem with discussing that sort of thing, it's just the rankings and awards that I find worthless. Same with Manager of the Year.
I guess this was directed at me.
First, who is getting defensive here? :-)
Second, criticism of the article itself, the votes, etc., is perfectly reasonable, and welcomed. But why is it unreasonable for us to defend ourselves against that criticism if we don't agree with it?
Third, I never told anyone to go #### themselves, that's just riduculous, and it's putting words in my mouth, and I take offense to it. I stand by the comment, if you don't like the concept or the number of voters move on. We did it, we'll do it again next year most likely, and if you don't like the concept don't read it (again, I'm not referring to criticism of the content, votes, etc. here when I say if you don't like it - I mean if you don't like the existence of the award itself). I also don't understand why you are so hung up on the number of voters. We post things we're interested in on this site, and enough of us were interested in voting and someone wanted to write an article, so here it is. To say we shouldn't do something we want to do because you don't think it's a sound idea is awfully presumptous on your part, no?
:*)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main