Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chaotic98
Keep in mind the bar isn't set high in terms of great GMs we have had. If we rated them as great, then it's just Gillick. I'm not sure Philly fans will feel the same way about his time there.
I think that's what probably gets lost in the conversation.
Quote:
In terms of my criteria for a Blue Jays' GM, let me first say I look at the MLB and Jays like a European soccer league (EPL for example) until a real league wide salary cap is implemented. The Jays are traditionally a mid tier level team, minus the late 80s and early 90s where they out spent and beat most.
For me, for a Jays GM to be successful he(she) needs to A) develop home grown young talent (from drafts or trades) B) Have good asset management: in trades and team payroll C) long term success: both in team wins and in asset management, and D) have some luck.
That's GM'ing 101 with the only difference being the parameters around where each GM is working with - payroll constraints, prospects, ALE factor...etc. Glad you mentioned wins because somehow that gets overlooked.
Quote:
Our team success isn't just dependent on how good our roster is, but how bad/unfortunate the Yankees/Red Sox are with injuries and bad contracts for our success in the AL East based on their traditional $200 million payrolls. Not to mention Tampa, seems to excel yearly at my aforementioned criteria. Therefore, our GMs needs to be great at A and B above to see winning successes.
be the The Rays
Quote:
JP did well to draft and develop talent, was mediocre in trades, terrible in acquiring FAs. AA was boom or bust in trades, terrible at developing homegrown talent, he signed a few top FAs, but to contracts that didn't age well, and had a lot of luck in how JB and EE turned their careers around and mediocre Boston, Yankee and Tampa teams. Let's not forget, based on the age of that 2015 team, the poorly aging contracts/FA contracts and the barren farm system, that team was built as a boom or bust, not as a dynasty for multiple years of success.
Did you see the chart I posted a few days ago which shows the contribution based on WAR of home grown vs non home grown players. The Dodgers stood out as having the highest WAR, all other teams got most of their WAR from non homegrown talent. The Padres in particular stood out, they had the lowest WAR in that chart. I don't think anyone expected that given how bad that team has been. I think GM's need to be adept at trading - more so than drafting because that is truly hit or miss. We don't want to be the Padres, they are on their 3rd re-build and ended up trading everyone away.
Atkins showed a hint of that trading skill when he acquired Walker and Ray at the TDL, however I don't know if that was Atkins working the phones or more the other teams dumping players. I think it was more dumping.
I'm not going to debate you on the luck thing with JB and EE because that's another conversation that requires a bit of understanding on the inner workings of a team. In general all players are self made. There's nearly zero development at the major league level, more in the minors but still it's on the player.
And I don't see much talk about their HBD. What happened to that? I'm really questioning it's effectiveness: Vlady's conditioning, Kirks body, Pearson and Romano's injuries....etc
Quote:
With Atkins, thus far he has developed talent well, has managed his assets in trades and fiscally well. I still don't like Grich's deal, but it aged better this year and I can live with Roark's 2 year deal. We can argue about the timing of his JD deal, but I think that has more to do with Rogers trying to fool season ticket holders than him not wanting to deal JD earlier, then his injury.
He has made the playoffs twice, by lucking out with 8 teams this year. He has yet to make a big trade for a big name player, but Ryu is a bigger FA signing we have had since the days of Gillick (or Ash if we think about a then washed up non PED Clemens).
Lastly, he has potentially set up this team for long term success unless he mismanages his assets. Again his tenure cannot be truly evaluated until he leaves to remove bias from it, *unless he wins a championship.
Atkins has set-up the team very well there's no denying that but I want to see more and I agree it's way to early to offer up an assessment.
