New GM/Cubs Future News Articles

[Guest]

With the Cubs, Theo would likely be playing with a slightly smaller payroll that makes it more difficult to withstand bad contracts like JD Drew, John Lackey, Julio Lugo, Carl Crawford and Matt Clement.

 

In fact how are those contracts any different than signing (or resigning) players like Carlos Zambrano, Alfonso Soriano, John Grabow, Milton Bradley. Both GMs signed players to large contracts and did not get their value back from them.

 

That said, I am certainly not saying that Theo = Hendry. When it comes to player development, Theo destroys Hendry. And obviously, Theo uses relevent statistics to evaluate players and that makes all the difference in signing and not signing a player like Soriano. As bad as some of those bad contracts that I listed above are, Theo has guided a team in the toughest division in the toughest league to 86+ wins every year. He clearly puts his team in a position where the team can still compete even if he makes a bad signing or two.

 

 

The slightly smaller payroll part is largely outweighed by the fact that nobody else in the division will spend even close to as much.

[Elrhino]

It's fair to point out his previous accomplishments, and also fair to point out he hasn't made the playoffs in back to back seasons despite a near $160+ million payroll and after committing $300 million in contracts over this past offseason.

Ths is crazy, the results speak. He wouldn't be battling the evil empire and need to win 95 games every year to win the division.

 

The results are he's been beat out in two consecutive years for a wildcard spot by a franchise with a fraction of the payroll. It's disingenuous to say the only reason his team hasn't made the playoff is they have to compete with the Yankees. He spent $300 million in the offseason and had the 5th best team in the AL.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Elrhino

[UMFan83]

It's fair to point out his previous accomplishments, and also fair to point out he hasn't made the playoffs in back to back seasons despite a near $160+ million payroll and after committing $300 million in contracts over this past offseason.

 

It's a fair point but in those 2 seasons he won 89 and 90 games, win totals that the Cubs have only reached twice in the last 13 years (2004 and 2008), and 3 times in the last 22 years. Then you consider the fact that he'd be building a team in a much easier league and division, and the fact that he built 2 World Series champions, and it becomes a moot point.

[UMFan83]

Again I want the best GM out there because I want results. I want someone who can build an organization where I know will be contending year in and year out.

 

90

89

95

95

96

86

95

98

95

 

Cubs fans would do back flips if they could win that consistently. 90 wins is something that the Cubs have achieved in just one 162 game season since 1989. Once in 22 years. And here Theo's Sox have done it 7 times in the last 9 years. Hey, if we get to the point where we are winning 89-90 games and not making the playoffs, and that's not good enough for us, I am ok with doing something else. But lets get there first. The Cubs have not had a consistently decent team since the 1940's. Theo has proven the ability to create a consistently good team in a large market. What's not to like about that?

[Guest]

Stop comparing it to Cubs history.

 

I agree with you overall in being in favor of Epstein, but it should have nothing to do with our pathetic recent past.

 

It's like excusing Cutler's shitty play because we have had nothing but garbage at QB for years.

 

Or the people who would consider it some huge pro in Hendry's favor that he had back to back .500 seasons because we hadn't done that in an eternity.

 

Just say that 90 wins almost every year is a damn good accomplishment and leave it at that.

[Backtobanks]

It's fair to point out his previous accomplishments, and also fair to point out he hasn't made the playoffs in back to back seasons despite a near $160+ million payroll and after committing $300 million in contracts over this past offseason.

 

It's a fair point but in those 2 seasons he won 89 and 90 games, win totals that the Cubs have only reached twice in the last 13 years (2004 and 2008), and 3 times in the last 22 years. Then you consider the fact that he'd be building a team in a much easier league and division, and the fact that he built 2 World Series champions, and it becomes a moot point.

 

There's no doubt that he's been a great GM in the toughest division in baseball, but I'm not sure about the NL necessarily being an "easier" league than the AL. Also, constructing a team is different because of the DH in the AL.

[Guest]

It's fair to point out his previous accomplishments, and also fair to point out he hasn't made the playoffs in back to back seasons despite a near $160+ million payroll and after committing $300 million in contracts over this past offseason.

 

It's a fair point but in those 2 seasons he won 89 and 90 games, win totals that the Cubs have only reached twice in the last 13 years (2004 and 2008), and 3 times in the last 22 years. Then you consider the fact that he'd be building a team in a much easier league and division, and the fact that he built 2 World Series champions, and it becomes a moot point.

 

There's no doubt that he's been a great GM in the toughest division in baseball, but I'm not sure about the NL necessarily being an "easier" league than the AL. Also, constructing a team is different because of the DH in the AL.

 

All that matters is really the division, and there's no question that the division is easier - if not the easiest, especially with Prince leaving Milwaukee and Albert possibly leaving St. Louis - (and I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider the AL a tougher league to begin with).

[UMFan83]

Stop comparing it to Cubs history.

 

I agree with you overall in being in favor of Epstein, but it should have nothing to do with our pathetic recent past.

 

It's like excusing Cutler's [expletive] play because we have had nothing but garbage at QB for years.

 

Or the people who would consider it some huge pro in Hendry's favor that he had back to back .500 seasons because we hadn't done that in an eternity.

 

Just say that 90 wins almost every year is a damn good accomplishment and leave it at that.

 

I am using the Cubs pathetic past to show how the "Golden age" of Cubs baseball has been pathetic relative to what Theo has done with the Red Sox, and if you as a Cubs fan are going to dismiss Theo because he only won 89 and 90 games the last 2 years, that's really illogical.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's like excusing Cutler's [expletive] play because we have had nothing but garbage at QB for years.

 

Huh?

 

 

All you can do in professional sports is compare results with the other teams in the league. Epstein's results have been better than just about anybody else.

[Guest]

It's like excusing Cutler's [expletive] play because we have had nothing but garbage at QB for years.

 

Huh?

 

 

All you can do in professional sports is compare results with the other teams in the league. Epstein's results have been better than just about anybody else.

 

 

When Cutler's overall mediocre play gets criticized, a lot of Bears fans use the refrain that he's far better than the carousel of [expletive] we've had for years to excuse it. He should be compared to the rest of the league, not our crappy history of QBs. He's been middle of the pack, at best.

 

That's not to say that there aren't idiots who are equally overly critical of him.

 

The bold is only a reiteration of what I already said (and what you replied to), so I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

[Magnetic Curses]

It's like excusing Cutler's [expletive] play because we have had nothing but garbage at QB for years.

 

Huh?

 

 

All you can do in professional sports is compare results with the other teams in the league. Epstein's results have been better than just about anybody else.

 

 

When Cutler's overall mediocre play gets criticized, a lot of Bears fans use the refrain that he's far better than the carousel of [expletive] we've had for years to excuse it. He should be compared to the rest of the league, not our crappy history of QBs. He's been middle of the pack, at best.

 

That's not to say that there aren't idiots who are equally overly critical of him.

 

The bold is only a reiteration of what I already said (and what you replied to), so I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

 

then there are those that fail to account for his line play.

[Guest]

It's like excusing Cutler's [expletive] play because we have had nothing but garbage at QB for years.

 

Huh?

 

 

All you can do in professional sports is compare results with the other teams in the league. Epstein's results have been better than just about anybody else.

 

 

When Cutler's overall mediocre play gets criticized, a lot of Bears fans use the refrain that he's far better than the carousel of [expletive] we've had for years to excuse it. He should be compared to the rest of the league, not our crappy history of QBs. He's been middle of the pack, at best.

 

That's not to say that there aren't idiots who are equally overly critical of him.

 

The bold is only a reiteration of what I already said (and what you replied to), so I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

 

then there are those that fail to account for his line play.

 

Yea I hate those people. And his shitty WRs too.

[Guest]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0930-gm-cubs-chicago--20110930,0,7338674.story

 

lol at how the title of the page (look at your tab/browser window title) calls him Brian Epstein

 

One day after the Red Sox's season ended, Epstein referred to Cubs' rumors as "just speculation."

 

"The process we're going to undertake (with ownership) is identifying all the issues that need addressing, taking a hard look at ourselves and seeing whether we're the people to address them," Epstein said of himself, manager Terry Francona and the coaching staff.

 

Epstein was considered a long shot to leave Boston before the collapse, and those odds may have increased because he would be leaving his organization at a low ebb.

 

Meanwhile, the movie "Moneyball" has become a critical and financial success. Beane, who is played by Brad Pitt in the film, appears unlikely to leave an A's organization that helped turn him into a movie character and downplayed Cubs' GM speculation Thursday.

 

"I have a little trip planned next week," he told reporters. "But other than that, yes I plan on being here."

 

Beane is hoping MLB gives the A's permission to relocate and build a new ballpark in San Jose. He's signed through 2014 and has a small ownership stake in the A's.

[toonsterwu]

I'm going to semi-defend Cutler for a moment. I've been as frustrated as any Bears fan with his inconsistencies, but coming out of college, he was the most pro-ready QB that year (Leinart/V.Young) and one of the most pro-ready 1st round QB's in the past decade. His ability to see the field and attack the different planes of the field was exceptional. He threw a tight ball and fit things into windows.

 

He wasn't dominant in Denver, but he was good. The consistent issue there was that he had good line play and a balanced attack.

 

Right now, Martz isn't willing to commit to the run game. A Martz offense needs at least one above average pass pro tackle, and the Bears are quite questionable in that regards right now. There isn't a lead target that takes pressure off the slot guys. There's no big target that's consistent. Yes, Cutler is at fault for a lot of the inconsistencies here, but this Cutler is a far different Cutler than was in Denver. His comments make me think that, despite his "toughness" and unwillingness to back down, Cutler might be getting near shell-shocked. It's easy to forget that David Carr was once considered a very good QB talent. Shell-shocked QB's can really suffer.

 

All in all, I put a lot of the blame on Angelo and Lovie Smith. They simply don't have the personnel to consistently run a Martz offense, and Martz isn't consistently willing to forgo the principles of his offense. This is an offense that's better for a Mike Tice, pound it away, try and occasionally stretch the field type of game. I wasn't even too bothered by the Greg Olsen move, as Kellen Davis had intriguing athleticism to attack the seams (not Olsen-like of course, but good enough) and was a better blocker, and yet, they don't utilize Kellen Davis enough in the passing game as a big target.

 

Angelo has failed to address the OL, failed to add weapons because he believes that OL can be developed and WR can be found. I'd be okay with this if he was excelling in the draft in other areas, but he hasn't exactly knocked things out of the ballpark.

______________________

 

As for the Cubs GM, sounds like some of the top targets may be out. Here's a name I'd toss out there for the heck of it to see some response, but what about Paul DePodesta. Not sure I love the idea, but curious what people think about him these days. I know he's indicated that he doesn't need to get a GM job to satisfy his professional urges (or something like that), and there's still a bad feeling from his Dodger days. That said, while his moves didn't succeed quick enough in Dodger-land, there was some solid rationale for the moves.

 

That said, I still wonder if we're talking about Hahn, Cherington and those other guys in the end.

[Guest]

Not sure why I even posted that. LOL at him suggesting Beane wouldn't come now because of the success of the movie. Wha???

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Between Beane and Epstein:

 

I'm more impressed with Epstein's drafting.

 

I'm more impressed with the improvement in the Sox' minor league system under Epstein.

 

Well so many things...

 

1 - Why?

 

2 - How much of that why can be covered by $$?

 

3 - Have you factored in that Wilken/Fleita will probably still remain a big part of what's done on draft day while they work here? Personally, I think they've done well for the Cubs since Wilken came on, and we'll be seeing the fruits of that labor very soon (well, some have already made an impact).

 

4 - How much does their actual scouting philosophy actually differ? Alot of what Epstein does and did was inspired by Beane's work in Oakland.

 

I'm more impressed with the major league talent that's emerged under Epstein.

 

Well it's been some time since the A's farm systems hey-day, but let's not be quick to forget:

 

Eric Chavez

Miguel Tejada

Ramon Hernandez

Barry Zito

Mark Mulder

Tim Hudson

Ben Grieve

Eric Byrnes

Chad Bradford

Rich Harden

Gio Gonzalez

Brett Anderson

Trevor Cahill

Kurt Suzuki

Mark Ellis

Nick Swisher

Mark Teahen

Joe Blanton

Andrew Bailey

whoever else

 

all were there and productive for them. Only recently has that farm system really lagged, but even then they're starting to put guys on the field again. For instance, Jemile Weeks is going to be a good 2B if he stays healthy.

 

I'm more impressed with Epstein's ability to stockpile compensatory picks.

 

Again, how much of that can be compensated by payroll difference to help bring talent in and out easier?

 

Epstein has experience working in a big-market, big-media environment, Beane doesn't.

 

Beane has half a decade more experience, spent time where he was considered the best GM in the game as has Epstein, put up a couple 100 win teams with a combined 3 players making more than 5 million dollars, is a major character in a popular book and critically acclaimed movie, and was at the front lines of changing the way many people look at baseball. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he won't be overwhelmed.

 

Beane has made some trades that left me scratching my head, Epstein's have been more impressive.

 

Yeah at this point, way too late really, I'm going to call selective memory/lost memories. Beyond the whole MoneyBall thing he's attached too, Beane became famous because of his ability to make a key trade to help boost the A's. 2001 Jermaine Dye...Ray Durham in 2002...Jose Guillen in '03...all considered major wins and deals at the time.

 

Epstein has some questionable FA signs on his resume, but Beane probably would too if he had the money to spend.

 

Now you're getting it.

Edited September 30, 2011 by KingKongvs.Godzilla

[UMFan83]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0930-gm-cubs-chicago--20110930,0,7338674.story

 

lol at how the title of the page (look at your tab/browser window title) calls him Brian Epstein

 

Can Paul McCartney play 1B?

[toonsterwu]

The thing that troubled me about Beane is that, unlike most GM's, it was well known that he was more active in the draft room than many other folks out there, and they really haven't had many really good drafts in the past decade. Now, IIRC, some reports suggest he backed off in recent years, but as a franchise, they haven't had many drafts that looked really strong in the past decade. Their drafts struggled a bit until they adjusted their "Moneyball" philosophy to acknowledge speed, defense, and take some gambles on prep players. Even then, over the past 5-7 years or so, the system hasn't exactly been strong, and the 07-09 drafts look ... below average to pedestrian.

 

All that said, I would've been intrigued with either guy, but both guys seem like they are staying put. It might be for the better for all we know. Beane backed off a big market job before and seems comfortable in Oakland, and Epstein's Red Sox are at a very dangerous spot, with some bad contracts and a weak system.

[KingCubsFan]

Chad Bradford

White Sox

Gio Gonzalez

White Sox

Brett Anderson

Diamondbacks

 

Most of the guys you mentioned were from a very long time ago. Despite having pretty high rankings, the A's have been unable to develop a lot of impact talent. Can't blame them for guys like Harden, but overall their farm system has been a disappointment under Beane for the past 10 years or so.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Chad Bradford

White Sox

Gio Gonzalez

White Sox

Brett Anderson

Diamondbacks

Most of the guys you mentioned were from a very long time ago. Despite having pretty high rankings, the A's have been unable to develop a lot of impact talent. Can't blame them for guys like Harden, but overall their farm system has been a disappointment under Beane for the past 10 years or so.

 

Alot of those guys are still playing, so it wasn't so long ago. Hell, a few just started playing.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

The thing that troubled me about Beane is that, unlike most GM's, it was well known that he was more active in the draft room than many other folks out there, and they really haven't had many really good drafts in the past decade. Now, IIRC, some reports suggest he backed off in recent years, but as a franchise, they haven't had many drafts that looked really strong in the past decade. Their drafts struggled a bit until they adjusted their "Moneyball" philosophy to acknowledge speed, defense, and take some gambles on prep players. Even then, over the past 5-7 years or so, the system hasn't exactly been strong, and the 07-09 drafts look ... below average to pedestrian.

 

All that said, I would've been intrigued with either guy, but both guys seem like they are staying put. It might be for the better for all we know. Beane backed off a big market job before and seems comfortable in Oakland, and Epstein's Red Sox are at a very dangerous spot, with some bad contracts and a weak system.

 

He was in the draft room when Bonderman was drafted. He probably could have stopped the pick from happening. It happened. Sure, Bonderman got traded, but he got traded for an impressive young lefty who was picking up K's with the Yankees in AL East named Ted Lilly.

 

Most people's ideas of what Beane prefers in the draft are shaped from what was outlined in Moneyball's passages. College players have more of a track record, there's more numbers and information on them, they theoretically can get to the big leagues sooner, and they're further out of the injury nexus. Therefore, the A's prefered college players. Within 3 years that strategy flipped, and they went after the most volatile of all draft prospects, the HS pitcher (Italiano, Langsford, and Mazarro in '05, mostly because teams started copying the college thing to help fill farm system up with solid talent that serves as the basis for a foundation).

 

As far as the lag in their farm system in recent years...and I'd say it's closer to 5...I'd chalk it up to attrition. No one has a permanently good farm system, particularly poor teams who consistently draft low in the first round.

[toonsterwu]

I know about Bonderman, but the rumor was that he was active in the draft room, moreso than other GM's, even up until the last few years.

 

I've followed the A's system for the past decade. I've seen the ups and downs, thepositional talents that were supposed to come through (Javier Herreracomes to mind). Their farm system overall has had a couple bright years in the last decade, partly due to trades. Had we brought him here, well, we'd be hoping that he wouldn't need to firesale guys to rebuild the organization, as he's needed to in Oakland. Problem is, his track record in drafting, even after the philosophical switch has been fairly spotty. When was the last good draft he had? I'll leave 2011 and 2010 aside for now, as it's too early to really judge those drafts (and neither draft really blew my socks off when it happened, and neither one is exactly blowing anyone's socks off right now). I mean, one of the prime names from the last two drafts is Michael Choice. I know some folks really love him, but there's a chance that offensively, he's basically a slightly better Ryan Flaherty. Yordy Cabrera and Aaron Shipman have big question marks. Matt Thomson was someone that had some hype, but he got banged up.

 

I mean, for a bad system, you need to draft well to turn things around, particularly for a small market club. Well, the 09 draft hasn't exactly done that. Grant Green is in CF. Max Stassi has struggled. Steve Parker is mildly intriguing and had some hype last offseason, but how much power does he have? Ian Krol may be intriguing, assuming he rehabs and works his way back. Justin Marks looks mildly intriguing, but in a back of the rotation lefty type of way. And he's in KC now anyways. The 08 draft does have Weeks to hang it's hat on and maybe Tyson Ross fits into the back end of the rotation. The rest of the draft was pretty eh. I mean, go through their drafts. It's not end of the world bad, as some recent drafts have been (what was it, Astros 2 years ago?), but it certainly hasn't been good. I mean, even going back to the 05 draft, Mazzaro and Italiano never really panned out the way some had hoped.

 

You can chalk it up to attrition. I'm chalking this Cubs year up as attrition, as 08-10 saw positive growth for the system. 1 year, okay. 2 years, fine, we can still go with attrition. But they've been mediocre as a system, as you acknowledge, far longer than that. It becomes less an issue of attrition and more an issue of judgment, either with player development or drafts once the issues last that long. Sure, you can put some of it on bad luck - injuries (didn't James Simmons get hurt?), but it hasn't been a good run for them. If it wasn't for some positive trades by Beane, they'd be in a far worse position.

 

Granted, money makes a difference, and it's possible they missed some guys due to money, but most of their top picks have signed over this stretch and it just hasn't worked out for them yet.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I know about Bonderman, but the rumor was that he was active in the draft room, moreso than other GM's, even up until the last few years.

 

Yes, and yet he didn't shut down a pick we know he absolutely hated. So, maybe by the word active the rumor meant possibly present and moving, but not in the mood to say no to what his scouts were saying about him.

 

I've done the same with the A's system. I remember the Richie Robnetts, Danny Putnams, and Javier Herraras of the world too. Michael Choice...Ryan Flaherty? Michael Choice is a CF possibly RF who projects to hit in the .240-.260 range, walk, and hit with power. Ryan Flaherty? He's also 4 years younger than Flaherty...Grant Green just won the MVP of the Futures Game this year...a lame award I know, but check out the alumni...guys like David Wright and Alfonso Soriano....Tyson Ross has been pretty good and might have good upside as a reliever...we're not talking a dead system here. We're talking about a system that just 10, 12 years ago was one of the most productive in the game, under the very same GM who was and is considered amongst the game's elite GMs. I have alot of trouble believing that this is anything more than a phase for their farm.

 

They have the pitching, it's the bats that need to come around. Personally, I like Brandon Allen and I've always been a Chris Carter fan, so there's a chance bat talent will be coming through soon to go with Weeks.

[MSG T]

I know about Bonderman, but the rumor was that he was active in the draft room, moreso than other GM's, even up until the last few years.

 

Yes, and yet he didn't shut down a pick we know he absolutely hated. So, maybe by the word active the rumor meant possibly present and moving, but not in the mood to say no to what his scouts were saying about him.

 

I've done the same with the A's system. I remember the Richie Robnetts, Danny Putnams, and Javier Herraras of the world too. Michael Choice...Ryan Flaherty? Michael Choice is a CF possibly RF who projects to hit in the .240-.260 range, walk, and hit with power. Ryan Flaherty? He's also 4 years younger than Flaherty...Grant Green just won the MVP of the Futures Game this year...a lame award I know, but check out the alumni...guys like David Wright and Alfonso Soriano....Tyson Ross has been pretty good and might have good upside as a reliever...we're not talking a dead system here. We're talking about a system that just 10, 12 years ago was one of the most productive in the game, under the very same GM who was and is considered amongst the game's elite GMs. I have alot of trouble believing that this is anything more than a phase for their farm.

 

They have the pitching, it's the bats that need to come around. Personally, I like Brandon Allen and I've always been a Chris Carter fan, so there's a chance bat talent will be coming through soon to go with Weeks.

 

Listen, Billy, we know you want the job, but you're looking desparate. I've seen hardly anyone, anywhere that has said they wouldn't want you as GM, you're just not everyone's #1 choice. Settle down, relax and let things happen. Personnally, I'd have no problem if you were hired, but again, you're not my first choice. Sorry.

 

 

BTW, love the movie.

[toonsterwu]

I know about Bonderman, but the rumor was that he was active in the draft room, moreso than other GM's, even up until the last few years.

 

Yes, and yet he didn't shut down a pick we know he absolutely hated. So, maybe by the word active the rumor meant possibly present and moving, but not in the mood to say no to what his scouts were saying about him.

 

I've done the same with the A's system. I remember the Richie Robnetts, Danny Putnams, and Javier Herraras of the world too. Michael Choice...Ryan Flaherty? Michael Choice is a CF possibly RF who projects to hit in the .240-.260 range, walk, and hit with power. Ryan Flaherty? He's also 4 years younger than Flaherty...Grant Green just won the MVP of the Futures Game this year...a lame award I know, but check out the alumni...guys like David Wright and Alfonso Soriano....Tyson Ross has been pretty good and might have good upside as a reliever...we're not talking a dead system here. We're talking about a system that just 10, 12 years ago was one of the most productive in the game, under the very same GM who was and is considered amongst the game's elite GMs. I have alot of trouble believing that this is anything more than a phase for their farm.

 

They have the pitching, it's the bats that need to come around. Personally, I like Brandon Allen and I've always been a Chris Carter fan, so there's a chance bat talent will be coming through soon to go with Weeks.

 

Choice is far more athletic than Flaherty, but most expect him to end in a corner OF spot, as you note, and his bat profiles similar to what expectations are for Flaherty right now. I'm not saying that's what Choice will be, but there's a decent chance he's just a slightly better Flaherty.

 

Grant Green was moved to CF. Grant Green doesn't really have the tools to be a top tier defensive CF, and it doesn't seem like his bat is going to take a major step forward. Who knows, maybe something clicks, but at best, he's an average power guy. I wouldn't be surprised if Grant Green was moved to a corner OF role eventually, where he'd have far less value unless his bat dramatically improves (if he's moved to a corner role and his bat doesn't improve, I have my doubts that he's anything more than a minor leaguer that could get a cup of tea in the bigs).

 

10-12 years is a long, long time. It's not a phase anymore. It's not attrition anymore when we're talking 10-12 years. That's at least a good 2-3 cycles for most organizations, depending on what type of talent they target. It's been average or lower for a good 5-7 years, and it's been average not due to their draft record, but due to their trade record.

 

I'm not bashing Beane. I'm just not going to hold him up to a pedestal when he hasn't done a lot to deserve it. I'm not going to bash him either, as they clearly have some market issues there that limit his capabilities. I would've been ... intrigued if he was our GM (and pair him with an old school scout type like Wilken could've been fascinating, although it could have been a very combustible situation). I'm just calling it as I see it -5 years of mediocrity or worse (which you've acknowledged above, personally I'd add another year or two onto that) isn't a short attention span anymore. His organization simply hasn't done well in the scouting area, and the overall system area. The buck stops with him. I am very much a fan of Beane and his trade acumen (even the Harden trade, while Gallagher fizzled out and Donaldson hasn't taken off, was a fairly solid move on his part), but you don't grab a Beane to come here because of his capability to do good firesales. I just don't see enough evidence to suggest that he's done well in the drafting area, unless the 2010/2011 drafts really come through for him.

 

I like Allen, not so big on Carter but I see the potential (think he's more a DH, big bat off bench type unless a hitting coach can shore up some holes, even then), thought the gamble on Kila made sense for them, but they once again get to what I'm arguing - those are prospects that he's attained through trades because of internal failures to develop corner power guys. Sean Doolittle, a guy I liked enough, has been hurt (and even then, was grossly overhyped from his Cal League stats). Jeff Baisley is a quad A type it seems. Christian Vitters wasn't that good. Jason Christian doesn't really have the power for a corner role. Anthony Aliotti had an ISOP of .120 in the Cal League. Stephen Parker is probably the most promising of the corner guys they've drafted, and his power is questionable (although it'll probably play at 3rd). I'm not too enthused with Kirby-Jones, Cabrera has a lot of work to do.

 

Everyone knows they can't land power guys in FA, and they haven't had a good offense in ... a long time ... but they simply haven't been able to draft the right guys to fill those voids.

 

I will grant some talent issues were a byproduct of bad luck. Grant Desme looked intriguing, and he quit baseball. Nothing they could do there.