Current GM Handicapping: Post-season edition
DMZ · September 29, 2008 at 9:00 am · Filed Under Mariners
A semi-random gauge of who’s likely to get the job. Based on current press coverage, rumors, substantiated and un, educated guesses, and so on. We claim no insight into front office machinations. Please, no wagering.
For names and brief resumes, check our potential GM candidates post.
| Who | Percent |
| LaCava | 30% |
| Woodfork | 25% |
| Ng | 12% |
| Avila | 5% |
| DiPoto/Hinch/Hoyer | 5% |
| Antonetti | 3% |
| Evans | 1% |
| Forst | 1% |
| Pelekoudas | 1% |
| Towers | 1% |
| White | 1% |
| Field | 5% |
“Field” is everyone not listed.
Dave adds: I’ve heard DePo gave up the right to interview for GM positions this winter when the Padres re-signed him to an extension a month or so ago.
Comments
29 Responses to “Current GM Handicapping: Post-season edition”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I know that everyone wants Antonetti, but aside from the odds list you have there, what would a list look like in order of who would be the best for the Ms if they miss out on Antonetti?
I’ve read all the GM posts, and it looks like a lot of them have the same kind of background and experience…what’s going to be the factor that gets us a championship?
The thought of an internet friendly Paul DePodesta interacting with the devoted net-centric portion of the M’s fanbase is exciting to me…but I hope that whoever it is doesn’t dismiss, fear, or ignore this part of the fan base. It’s the one thing Bavasi did that I’d like to see continue on.
Cashman is lobbying hard. Hank is psycho.
I don’t want Cashman, based on what little I know of him and his track record. If I could analyze his abilities independent of the Bronx Zoo maybe I’d be more comfortable, but as of now, I don’t want anyone affiliated with the only team in the same league as the M’s in terms of payroll v. underperformance.
Zackr, I don’t believe you for a second. Sorry, but Hank doesn’t run the Yankees. You’re right; his interference might drive Cashman away, but why would he move to Seattle, where LincStrong torpedoed a deadline deal made by the GM? Hank doesn’t actually have that kind of power. Hal Steinbrenner actually runs the team, and Hal and Cashman are close. Both Mark Feinsand and Tyler Kepner think he’s coming back to the Yankees. Neither writer mention him being specifically interested in any other job, much less “lobbying hard.” If you’ve got specific reason to think otherwise, post it. Unless you can show me a source, though, I’d count Cashman out of the speculation, as Dave did.
A little bird is telling me that Kim Ng will get the job.
Although, I would like to know, if someone could explain it to me, what Terry Ryan’s status is with the Twins and what his desire is to get another general manager position.
FWIW, Larry Stone has Cashman out of the running this morning.
I’m happy you have your opinion tuomas, although it’s speculative, and wrong. I have no need for you to believe me whatsoever.
[ot]
Actually, what Tuomas is saying is pretty well in line with what information is out there regarding Cashman and the current Yankees leadership situation.
Regardless, let’s back off of calling other people’s opinions “speculative and wrong”, since pretty much everything we hear at this point is going to be a bit fuzzy.
Senior Advisor
at the end of 2007 he told the Boston Globe that he’d be “scouting players for the Twins, evaluating the minor league system, making trips to watch players in Latin America.
He’s only 53, but when asked whether he’d ever work as a GM again, he said, “I don’t see it.””
Hm, that is an exciting thought. Are any of the other candidates “internet friendly”?
I’ve said all I can say. The information is good, and not speculative.
Thanks msb!
It’s too bad Terry doesn’t want another GM job though, knowing what he turned the Twins organization into, he would’ve been a really nice fit here.
But hey, maybe there are better fits out there.
If you have awesome inside sources into the situation, which you’re seeming to strongly imply; awesome. Share with the class.
But until you’re willing to provide something more substantial in the way of sources and specifics, it’s not appropriate for you to show up and tell other people they are being “speculative and wrong”.
We’ve had enough of that sort of thing with Baker recently; it adds nothing to the conversation and creates ill feelings.
so, The White Sox play the Tigers for a chance to play the Twins, right?
So with LaCava, Woodfork, DePodesta, and Avila all out of the playoffs, what are the chances that the M’s can get this position filled quickly? I would think that the quicker we get somebody in here to start cleaning up this mess the better.
per Jim Street “The game plan as stated by club officials is to finalize a short list this week, begin the interview process the following week and have the position filled prior to or soon after the World Series. In almost all cases, Major League Baseball does not allow clubs to make major announcements during the Fall Classic. “
Thanks msb, hope everything goes according to plan.
Alas, the FO hasn’t yet posted the GM job on their job board:
http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/mlb/help/jobs.jsp?c_id=sea
Not that they would, but that would be an interesting read… “Successful candidate must be able to evaluate talent using the team’s ‘niceness scale.’ Prior history of increasing payroll and decreasing results is a must. Statisticians need not apply.”
Hey, I sent a resume to the Mariners a while back, just for fun.
Howie, Chuck, give me a call!
Apologies if this has been covered – I skimmed the comments and didn’t see any mention of this quote from the Times’ article Sunday.
Armstrong insists he isn’t wedded to any one style and that a heavier use of statistical analysis will not necessarily be required. He points out that Bavasi convinced Lincoln and him to sign pitcher Carlos Silva and trade for pitcher Erik Bedard by using analyses by Mariners statistical adviser Mat Olkin to show what the moves would mean in wins and losses.
Either Bavasi misread the stats or Chuck’s lying, right? Especially in regards to Silva. Either that, or possible Chuck made a comment about statistical analysis and it was extrapolated to mean what was written?
I mean, I’d believe that were true if both moves weren’t nearly universally panned (at the time) for one reason or another.
I was shocked by that quote about Olkin, too. The idea that Olkin believed Bedard for five players or Silva for a truckload of money for four years were statistically sound moves seems… improbable at best. I could see Olkin pointing to both of them as potentially being undervalued, but not to the degree to which the M’s wound up overvaluing both of them.
Or maybe Mat Olkin is a lousy analyst.
Or maybe Olkin was forced to use “stats” that Bavasi could wrap his mind around, like ERA and WHIP, but was specifically told that he could leave any post-McCracken ideas behind.
The mention of “wins and losses” gives us some hints, but that’s not a particularly new concept. Unfortunately for the M’s, it’s not 1983, and you don’t get SDCN bonus points just for knowing what park factor is any more.
If, indeed, zackr’s information is “good” and “not speculative” about Cashman, that would be right in line with Chuck ‘N Howie’s MO, which seems to be “make a big splash” — even if in the past their MO has resulted in a series of bellyflops.
Allow me to isolate the part of the quote that actually indicates what Olkin’s analysis showed:
Translation: Olkin was only looking at whether adding Silva and Bedard would make the team likely to win more games in 2008. He was wrong about Silva and possibly right about Bedard, depending on whether the analysis was supposed to account for giving up Jones and Sherrill. But there’s nothing that would suggest he thought Silva’s contract was a good allocation of resources or the Bedard package was a wise decision over the long term.
That’s the way it seems to me as well. I can see Olkin providing an analysis that shows Silva would be an improvement. I can also see an Olkin analysis at one point that Silva is the best remaining FA pitcher, especially if durability is factored in. Or maybe he simply concludes that Silva is as good as any remaining free agent pitcher.
Bavasi and staff might then use that analysis to buttress their beliefs that Silva is the best option remaining. Based on the conclusion, Bavasi would then establish what it would take to sign Silva, and conclude that contract is the going rate for getting help for the rotation. Nothing in the article suggests that Olkin provided any assessment as to whether signing Silva would be the most effective way to spend that money.
That scenario matches the bits that are known about Olkin’s role; the Mariners ask him to look at specific players or situations and report back. There’s been no indication the team asks Olkin for bigger picture input.
Of course that illustrates a blind spot for the Mariners. Lincoln and Armstrong apparently believe that by deploying Olkin in that fashion they are deploying advanced numeric analysis.
At the risk of sounding too pedantic, DePodesta’s 10% chance needs to be redistributed among the remaining choices.
There’s an updated one going up in a couple minutes. Patience.