Wilkens being extended?

[toonsterwu]

I'm fine with Wilken, but I think Ricketts is acting irresponsibly by committing to them first. Sure, the contracts may be structured in a way that they could get out of these deals, but any new GM is going to know that these are guys the owner wants. He should get the GM in place, have the GM feel things out with Wilken and Fleita. I'm glad Ricketts is being pro-active, but this is a bit much.

[SouthSideRyan]

Assuming the contracts are structured as rumored(which is still a fairly big assumption), I view it the same way as all the 1 year vets that were kept on the team despite having some sort of market for them. He's keeping around any piece that may be desired by a new GM, and putting it on him. Now I think Fleita and Wilken will be kept around by a new GM (maybe not in his current position for Fleita) in order to ensure a smooth transition, but I don't see how it's handcuffing the new guy at all.

[toonsterwu]

I don't think he's necessarily handcuffing the new GM, particularly if the contracts are done in a way that they can get out of it, but I think it's a bit unnecessary and a bit backwards, and as it pertains to organizational development, may cause for some potential in-house issues (all organizations are obviously, unique, but there has been enough evidence shown in the past that such actions taken by top management can lead to disruptions in whatever hierachical structure of the organization). It's certainly possible that, in the end, these actions may simply be a gold watch for Fleita and Wilken. Furthermore, as Passan noted today, this sort of action may turn off some possible GM targets. What GM is going to love the idea of getting rid of guys that his owner likes? They may do it in the end, but it certainly leaves a bad taste.

 

May be much ado about nothing in the end, and I like Wilken enough, but it just seemed, as noted above, unnecessary and backward.

[Guest]

I think it's more likely that Ricketts is saying "here, I kept these guys so you didn't have to replace your player development executives in 3-4 months on top of working on one of the most crucial offseasons the team has had in years" rather than "these here are my guys and if you disagree then we're gonna have some speaks".

[toonsterwu]

Well, most GM candidates have an idea of possibilities for scouting director and player personnel development guy that they can get (and if they don't, they really aren't good GM candidates). I mean, guys have good understandings of others contract situations and whether or not it is actually possible to get them. I don't think, if the house was clean (and Fleita/Wilken weren't given these extensions) that it would tremendously hamper a new GM. They would likely have their guys in place withini a week or two of being hired.

 

IIRC, when Epstein was hired in Boston, he brought in his team, and it was a dramatically different approach, and they managed to conduct a review of the organization and assess issues with the prior regime all within the first month or so, and if I recall correctly, they had their issues sorted out and an offseason plan in place fairly quick.

 

Again, it may amount to nothing, but in the end, I think, from an organizational perspective, it was better to have left things clean, particularly since Ricketts made clear how much he liked Fleita and Wilken long before giving them those extensions. I say this as someone who leans towards wanting to see Wilken kept around.

[Guest]

I'm not saying that it's a black and white, yes/no scenario. My point is that it's not some sort of harbinger of doom, or an impediment in the hiring process, because it's not a yes/no situation.

 

Also, Epstein had been with the organization prior to being named GM.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I think it's more likely that Ricketts is saying "here, I kept these guys so you didn't have to replace your player development executives in 3-4 months on top of working on one of the most crucial offseasons the team has had in years" rather than "these here are my guys and if you disagree then we're gonna have some speaks".

 

Ex-[expletive]-actly.

 

There are much bigger fish to try to catch this offseason, like one of the two Godzilla sized 1B who we can literally build an offense around for AT LEAST the next half decade.

 

Plus, there's just no need to waste New GM/Savior's time looking for scouting/farm heads when the only gains this franchise has made in the past 3-4 years has been in the farm system anyway. I understand that what I just said here is up for questioning due to the fact that the outside world hasn't acknowledged the farm system with a high ranking yet and that surely the big league club would be good if the farm is any good. That said, overall I think the farm has been going in the right direction for at least a couple of years now adding a ton of up the middle athletes with a variety of skill and tool sets. It's a farm system that could be huge in the next couple of years within the whole of baseball once a few of the young guys get going. 2012 specifically could be a huuuuuuge year for the farm system with another top 10 pick, hopefully a healthier Hayden Simpson and McNutt amongst the pitchers, and then the growth of whoever shows up next year amongst the hoard of position guys they've collected.

Edited September 7, 2011 by KingKongvs.Godzilla

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not saying that it's a black and white, yes/no scenario. My point is that it's not some sort of harbinger of doom, or an impediment in the hiring process, because it's not a yes/no situation.

 

Also, Epstein had been with the organization prior to being named GM.

 

It could very easily be an impediment to the hiring process.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I'm not saying that it's a black and white, yes/no scenario. My point is that it's not some sort of harbinger of doom, or an impediment in the hiring process, because it's not a yes/no situation.

 

Also, Epstein had been with the organization prior to being named GM.

 

It could very easily be an impediment to the hiring process.

 

And just as easily, and as likely, not be an impediment.

[Guest]

I'm not saying that it's a black and white, yes/no scenario. My point is that it's not some sort of harbinger of doom, or an impediment in the hiring process, because it's not a yes/no situation.

 

Also, Epstein had been with the organization prior to being named GM.

 

It could very easily be an impediment to the hiring process.

 

Well yes, if you take those actions as an indicator of an approach on Ricketts' part that runs counter to everything he's said and done so far, then yes, I suppose it could be an impediment.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not saying that it's a black and white, yes/no scenario. My point is that it's not some sort of harbinger of doom, or an impediment in the hiring process, because it's not a yes/no situation.

 

Also, Epstein had been with the organization prior to being named GM.

 

It could very easily be an impediment to the hiring process.

 

Well yes, if you take those actions as an indicator of an approach on Ricketts' part that runs counter to everything he's said and done so far, then yes, I suppose it could be an impediment.

 

I'm not the one being interviewed. Subtle outside forces have caused guys to not accept jobs at this level before and will do so in the future.

 

There was nothing to gain by keeping Fleita, and something to lose.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

I'm not the one being interviewed. Subtle outside forces have caused guys to not accept jobs at this level before and will do so in the future.

 

There was nothing to gain by keeping Fleita, and something to lose.

 

In the end, most likely nothing. You're making the huge assumption that New GM will agree that Fleita is bad at his job, wholly incompetent, and inflexible in his philosophy.