The extremely early top probable GM candidate ranking
Here are the handful of people off that list I think have the best chance to make the initial cut and get the job. This is based on strength of their candidacy, what we know about how well they’ve interviewed in the past, what the M’s want to see in a candidate, and who’s doing the search. I have no more information than anyone else, and since the M’s haven’t started leaking names or process yet, and there’s no news on who’s been allowed or denied permission to interview, they’re just guesses.
I’d bet the M’s intentionally or not will group the candidates, and there’ll be at least one from each in their finalists. I’ve been thinking of them as:
– Internals
– Young whippersnappers
– Familiar, experienced faces, mostly from scouting
– Nice clean young men who remind them of themselves what seems like only a few years ago
I’ve picked who I think will be the top candidates in each group to produce the finalist group.
Impudent whippersnappers: Antonetti
Polite youngsters: Tony LaCava, Peter Woodfork
Familiar faces/scouting path: Al Avila, Logan White
Internals: Lee Pelekoudas
Retreads: Wayne Krivsky
Yes, I’m serious, I’ve got a bad feeling about Krivsky. Notable drops: I’m hoping they’d give Forst, DePo, and Ng a shot, but I don’t have a lot of confidence that’ll happen (or that they’d want the job). Forst has the the division problem I noted yesterday.
They’ll like Woodfork and LaCava a lot, and I’d bet Avila and Logan do well too. Pelekoudas gets waved to the final round as the internal guy and the interim GM. If Towers is seriously available, and I think it would take a lot for that to happen, he’d be on there.
I don’t think it’s likely that more than one of Antonetti/DePodesta/Forst gets to the final round, and even if they don’t intend to hire from that group, they’ll string one along for PR/brain-picking purposes. The ideal scenario, from my point of view anyway, is that they bring one of these guys in for the token interview and they absolutely blow away the competition with the level of thought and preparation they’ve put into it. I don’t know.
In retrospect, I should have given Jerry DiPoto his own writeup instead of bunching him in with the Diamondbacks/Red Sox comment in Woodfork’s writeup. Maybe I’ll go back for that.
And again, I’d bet Dave would come up with a significantly different list, as would anyone.
I hope that’s at all helpful — this is a pretty frequently-requested post, and I’m sure we’ll be updating it.
Comments
37 Responses to “The extremely early top probable GM candidate ranking”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Krivsky Dan Duquette? Gut feeling is <. That makes me sad. Frick, he’d be < Jim, too, wouldn’t he?
I figure they’ll have trouble keeping DiPoto and DePodesta’s names straight, decide it’s not worth the effort, and write them both off.
No love for Dan Evans? He’s familiar with the org and has the scouting background they love (and has actually had success implementing it). Maybe he’s happy being an agent, but I thought he’d make the speculative short list.
Also, I wouldn’t underestimate the likelihood of one of the “whippersnappers” nailing the interview and opening their eyes to how stats and scouting can coexist peacefully in the same org, or what they could do with an internally-developed DiamondView.
I guess I just can’t freak out about Krivsky (or any of this) yet. I’ve been beating this drum pretty hard in the various GM threads.
If you want a guy in the same mold as Bavasi, why not just keep Bavasi? It doesn’t really make sense to me to make a change to more of the same.
Now, someone like Antonetti or DePodesta might be TOO much of a reach for this organization, but I don’t see a retread being the way that they go.
I think it’s likely we’ll end up with Towers if he comes available, or someone like LaCava.
If I’m wrong and we end up with Krivsky or another “old-school” guy, I’ll take ownership of that; but most of the evidence we have of this organization being backwards in their thinking is through the filter of Bavasi and his moves, and I’m not sure we know enough about how much was him and how much was the remainder of the front office to just assume they’re going to flub this.
That’s assuming that the change is being made from a position of “we really do need to do something different”, rather than making BB a fall guy. It’s obvious that the BB philosophy didn’t work from our standpoint. However, they (A and L) have consistently pointed to increasing W/L records every year until now, and the fact that the players are underperforming (they are, but it’s because they suck, not because they’re unlucky).
I think it’s really possible that BB wouldn’t fire McLaren (the initial sacrificial lamb), and so he was shown the door. A and L appear to think (from their statements to the media, etc.) that the players we have now, who were brought to us due to the failed strategy of BB, SHOULD be doing better. So, we chalk it up to bad luck, hire a BB clone, and think it’ll all work out next year.
I have no confidence in this process.
I think if there hadn’t just been the flurry of ‘Hank really does like Brian’ stories, we’d be hearing more about Cashman as a combination of old school & new
How do you tell how much of that is what they actually think, and how much is them presenting a unified message to the media, though? Don’t forget, the Mariners are a corporation and it could just be them “circling the wagons” with what they say publicly.
I’m just not sure we have as much insight into what Armstrong and Lincoln really think as we might believe that we do. These are guys with a lot of practice in giving carefully crafted answers to the media, especially Lincoln in his experience with Nintendo.
Again, if they end up hiring Krivsky or Cashman (who I want nothing to do with), I’ll gladly admit that I was wrong, but until then I’m prepared to have an open mind.
Despite some public statements in which they tacitly sided with Bill’s direction, I don’t think “take a mulligan, hire the next Bill Bavasi” is Lincoln and Armstrong’s plan. I believe they will genuinely seek out a variety of theories and strategies for how the Mariners can be turned around and will carry out that process fully before making a decision.
Jeff,
Why so sour on Cashman? He wouldn’t be my favorite, either, but he would be far from the second-worst choice.
Site suggestion:
How about a chart (linked on the side like the Future 40) which displays all of the potential GM candidates, their strengths/weaknesses, any updates/links, the USS Mariner rankings, and the real rankings. That way you can keep all this good information in one place.
Because I don’t think there’s any real way to tell how good Cashman is as a GM; it’s too hard to distinguish actual success from how much the Yankees’ enormous payroll masks mistakes.
I don’t think he’d be TERRIBLE, but I’m not convinced he can build a winning team without a quarter of a billion dollars per year to play with.
I agree, I agree. As I said in my original post, it appears that they think this way, not that they do. I’m good, but not good enough to read minds. However, since I can’t, I really do have to base my conclusions off what they actually SAY. And, since the only real things they’ve said about the process (granted, the process has barely started) seem to take a neutral to positive view of the players and other individuals in place, and seem to be chalking everything up to “bad luck”, “poor motivation” and “voodoo”, I still remain unconvinced.
I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve not seen any empirical evidence that things are going to do a 180 (or even a 90). 😉
Why believe this, though? What actual evidence do we have that they’re going to change an entrenched philosophy? I’m all for wishful thinking, and try to engage in it often. However, the only thing we can judge people on is their past performance (isn’t that what we want from the next GM, and not a bunch of thoughts about unable-to-quantify junk like “leadership”, “grittiness”, and whatever?), and A and L haven’t demonstrated the tendency or ability to think the way most readers here do. Therefore, until they prove otherwise, I’m not gonna hold my breath. Just me, though. I hope I’m wrong about them.
The problem is that they haven’t been making sensible decisions at any of the management levels for a long time. Firing Bavasi was long overdue, yet they continue to run Turbo out there. That shows me a lingering reluctance to address problems that are clearly in the light of day now, and have been tacitly acknowledged in public already. I think they will cling to the belief that their philosophy just needs some tweaking and some better luck to produce a radically different result.
I think the comments about a new direction are more lip service than anything else. For the club to hire a DePo or Ng or Antonetti, it would take HoChuck admitting that their entire organizational philosophy has been not just wrong, but abysmally, grotesquely, stunningly outdated and completely wrong since the beginning.
I think the likelihood of hiring has to start at the Pelekoudas/Krivsky level and work its way down toward names like Antonetti. And honestly, without a stated commitment to embracing modern evaluative methods, what future star GM of the Antonetti ilk would even want the job? Functionally, I imagine it would be frustrating in the same way as working for Angelos…not that they’ll make the decisions for you necessarily, but they may mandate criteria that effectively neuter your sabermetric talent evaluations. Man, I am really pessimistic…
That’s it. Out-freakin’-standing. 😀
There’s not much “evidence” one way or another, save for their carefully-worded public statements.
They are successful businessmen. They aren’t running a preschool. The leadership in charge of the on-field product didn’t deliver. They recognized that, made what was likely a very difficult move on a personal level, and will now seek to hire someone they believe will have better success. They won’t do so quickly, blithely, or casually.
Who is “they”? Lincoln and Armstrong aren’t the GMs. Roster makeup is now Lee Pelekoudas’ responsibility. Let’s give him more than a day or two before we decide he isn’t able to make moves that lead to improvement.
It’s hard not to be pessimistic given the recent record of the team, smb; I don’t blame you. I’m just saying it’s worth taking a wait-and-see attitude for now.
Someone like Antonetti or another “hot” candidate wouldn’t come here without assurances that he would be able to work with a pretty free hand. And I think the “brain trust” has to realize that in order to get a quality candidate, they’re going to need to be more willing to let them do their job.
I agree. We have lots of evidence that HoChuck recognize they’ve screwed up — it’s impossible to miss — but ZERO evidence that they have even a ghost of an idea why. I see no reason not to think they believe the problem with the team is fundamentally a character issue. I think they’re going to hire someone based on an analysis of how well he evaluates character.
I say he; I don’t think there’s a chance in hell they hire Kim Ng. This ownership group worships barriers, they don’t break them.
I think any of the smart group is going to be seriously handicapped when they get to the question “tell us what you see as wrong with this team now?” because they have no interest in hearing the truth. The truth scares the crap out of these guys.
Someone like Antonetti or another “hot†candidate wouldn’t come here without assurances that he would be able to work with a pretty free hand. And I think the “brain trust†has to realize that in order to get a quality candidate, they’re going to need to be more willing to let them do their job.
I think that’s the scary part in a nutshell: will the “brain trust” actually embrace change at this level, allow it to happen, and bring in a “hot” candidate? Or do they take the aforementioned mulligan or something close to it and we end up with BB2? Time will tell…
I agree with you on this part, but I’m not sure I agree with the application of that concept that you propose.
I mean, isn’t one of the primary reasons to hire a new GM (or really, any management position in any business) to find someone who can tell you what you’re doing wrong, and how to fix it?
Bavasi was a big “character” guy and they fired him; it’s not necessarily a fait accompli that they’ll try to find a guy that does the same thing but differently, if such a thing even exists.
It just kind of angers me that we are even aloud to ponder if the organization would not be willing to sign a great GM because of pride.
If Forst is impressive and the best move for our team (and he could be one of them), you hire him, pride or not. Besides if he constructs a team that just whoops up on the A’s for years to come, whos pride does it hurt then, The A’s, for letting him walk.
Well. Anyone but Gillik and Krivsky, and I probably won’t mind.
I think any of the smart group is going to be seriously handicapped when they get to the question “tell us what you see as wrong with this team now?†because they have no interest in hearing the truth. The truth scares the crap out of these guys.
But I would love to be a fly on the wall during one of those sessions. 🙂
“It has taken your organization a number of years and a number of blisteringly bad moves to get into this position…and it will take a while to get out of it.”
Yeah, they’ll throw a bone to Antonetti or Forst just to give off the impression they are forward-thinking. But it’s all for cosmetic purposes.
PR. The team sucks, so the organisation has to be seen to be doing something about it.
Armstrong and Lincoln may well agree with Bavasi’s comments of recent weeks that insist the team is good, but the players just aren’t trying.
I don’t buy that, though. If they wanted to do something for PR purposes, firing McLaren would make a lot more sense.
Yeah, Jeff, I agree, it’s worth it to wait and see. Besides, if we conclude already that there’s no way they take a progressive tact and start modernizing their talent evaluation, then we miss out on all this awesome GM speculation and sweet, sweet glimmers of hope that we didn’t have even a week ago. Compared to even just days ago, things are definitely looking up.
BaltimoreDave,
Okay, you got me, that was obtusely worded. Please let me know when Pelekoudas cuts Vidro, as I will supply the keg. The move is now two days overdue. Every day Vidro remains on the roster makes Pelekoudas look stupid.
25 – maybe. Canning Mac would have had some PR value but the larger question that had to be dealt with from the PR side was “who built the team that Mac has to manage?” That landed in Bavasi’s lap and that’s why I think he was first…PR or not.
[off-topic]
PADJ, that directly conflicts with the previous party line of “we have a good process that produced bad results” (that is blatantly stolen from Dave, by the way).
So, if they’re following that party line, it means that McLaren is failing to get the best out of the talent on the team, making him the obvious fall guy within the context of what they’ve been saying.
So I don’t think this is a PR stunt; you can question how progressive they’re likely to be with their choice but I don’t think this is a scapegoat situation.
For everyone who is afraid that they will refuse to change their “organizational philosophy,” look at Nintendo itself. They stubbornly refused to move into using compact discs as a medium for gaming, insisting that cartridges were the right way to go. The next thing they know Sony and Microsoft have left them for dead in every possible aspect of the console gaming experience. So, what does Nintendo do? They say screw graphics and go so far ahead of what the other two were doing with their motion control gaming experience that they blew them out of the water regarding sales. This leap-frogging of theirs was so industry changing that Sony tried in vain to add on their own motion control at the last second and failel miserably.
So, while we think there may be no hope and this “old-school” way of thought runs too deep in the organization… there is hope. Their very own parent company has shown a tremendous ability to evolve. I expect that Mr. Yamauchi and Co. want nothing less for their on-field product.
Actually, I think Lincoln was helming the company when they resisted going into compact disc, and it took until he left before they were able to leapfrog.
I think there IS very little hope….
I’m just not sure we have as much insight into what Armstrong and Lincoln really think as we might believe that we do.I totally agree. In addition, I disagree with the sentiment that these executives are incapable of learning from the current fiasco. Given the long time frame they have set forth for hiring a new GM, I think there is ample time for a serious and honest assessment (with the board of directors) of their responsibility for the situation, and of their roles going forward.
After a couple of months for some more shoes to drop, a few deals to go down, and maybe even couple more heads to roll, the time will be ripe for an executive departure under the face-saving assertion that “we have begun the turnaround, and it’s time for some new blood to see it through in the years ahead.”
#30 jimmylauderdale
It is my hope that is true. It does seem reasonable as the minority owners are from a more tech based background.
Actually not certain other than Armstrong who is actually “old school baseball”.
My .02 goes to DePosdesta. Simply because after USSM his blog is great. The entry regarding Yankee Stadium and taking his 4 year old Son has to create an image of Him as fan friendly and Family oriented.
To be fair, that was a MUCH larger change than what we’re talking about here. Entire production facilities had to be retooled, software development contracts renegotiated, packaging had to be changed, agreements with retailers regarding shelf space reassessed, etc etc etc.
While this seems huge to US, it’s small potatoes from a comparison standpoint.
True.
On the other hand, I think it’s true that it takes a change further towards the top for new ideas to seep into a sports team….more ego involved, I think…
What’s this? No mention of ESPN’s very own Steve “The Mariners will make the World Series this year” Phillips as a top candidate?
Lincoln did the initial announcement of the Gamecube, so I assume he was there when they were leaping — he retired in 2000, about a year before it actually was released.