Rob Antony's Audition

I'm criticizing those who suggest it should matter in Antony's bid for the full time job.  I agree that there's pretty much nothing that Antony can do publicly right now to make his bid for the job --  his case, if he has one, would have to come privately in the form of a thorough and comprehensive plan for re-organization and evaluation throughout the front office and player development systems.

And this is part of the problem. There are an awful lot of people on here who claim to know Rob can't do the job based solely off their opinion of Terry or an interview he did almost SEVEN years ago. And they also assume someone from the outside is more qualified even though they have the same job duties as Rob because they are from a different org. 

I'm criticizing those who suggest it should matter in Antony's bid for the full time job. I agree that there's pretty much nothing that Antony can do publicly right now to make his bid for the job -- his case, if he has one, would have to come privately in the form of a thorough and comprehensive plan for re-organization and evaluation throughout the front office and player development systems.

 

And this is part of the problem. There are an awful lot of people on here who claim to know Rob can't do the job based solely off their opinion of Terry or an interview he did almost SEVEN years ago. And they also assume someone from the outside is more qualified even though they have the same job duties as Rob because they are from a different org.

I don't claim to know if Antony is qualified or not.

Personally, I'd like an outside hire simply because I want unbiased, objective eyes to evaluate every single position in the organization.

Rob Antony is human, we all sometimes make irrational or biased assessments of people that we care about or have close and longstanding relationships with.

Perhaps Rob is able to compartmentalize all that and still make objective assesments, I don't know. I can't help but think it would hard to fire people you know personally.

Maybe Rob would make a great GM. I'd prefer he get that chance somewhere else.

Or, if he is part of the solution, maybe they hire a VP of baseball operations from outside to do all those assesments, and keep Antony on as GM.

I don't claim to know if Antony is qualified or not.

Personally, I'd like an outside hire simply because I want unbiased, objective eyes to evaluate every single position in the organization.

Rob Antony is human, we all sometimes make irrational or biased assessments of people that we care about or have close and longstanding relationships with.

Perhaps Rob is able to compartmentalize all that and still make objective assesments, I don't know. I can't help but think it would hard to fire people you know personally.

Maybe Rob would make a great GM. I'd prefer he get that chance somewhere else.

Every year an NFL team wants to hire a Patriots coach, coordinator, personnel guy hoping they are going to recreate the Patriots. And about each time it doesn't work. I'm not saying any of these outside names wouldn't be good GMs. What I am saying is you are overrating candidates based strictly on who their current employer is. Maybe Rob is biased. But the other person may come in biased and wreck some of the momentum that has been built just because and cause a bigger setback. Just keep an open mind.

Every year an NFL team wants to hire a Patriots coach, coordinator, personnel guy hoping they are going to recreate the Patriots. And about each time it doesn't work. I'm not saying any of these outside names wouldn't be good GMs. What I am saying is you are overrating candidates based strictly on who their current employer is. Maybe Rob is biased. But the other person may come in biased and wreck some of the momentum that has been built just because and cause a bigger setback. Just keep an open mind.

Absolutely, I want a smart, informed, thought out hire. I don't want a lazy flavor of the month hire like you described above.

I will keep an open mind. If Antony is the hire, I might grumble for a few weeks, but I'll give him a chance. If he makes some significant changes in the organization I'll have some curious interest in what he can do.

If he deems the status quo as good to go, I'll believe he was the wrong hire, because there is no way that Terry Ryan was the only person at fault for the last 6 years.

Absolutely, I want a smart, informed, thought out hire. I don't want a lazy flavor of the month hire like you described above.
I will keep an open mind. If Antony is the hire, I might grumble for a few weeks, but I'll give him a chance. If he makes some significant changes in the organization I'll have some curious interest in what he can do.
If he deems the status quo as good to go, I'll believe he was the wrong hire, because there is no way that Terry Ryan was the only person at fault for the last 6 years.

Please give me some examples you want the organization to do that you believe we are not doing that would make us better? 

Please give me some examples you want the organization to do that you believe we are not doing that would make us better?

I can't, I'm not in a position to make assessments of every person in the organization and not qualified even if I were.

In an organization with hundreds of employees, you don't become one of the worst in the league because ONLY one person is failing at their job.

People who are not getting results from their duties need to be replaced, whether they be in scouting, minor league development, analytical, research, medical, training, or on field staff.

I understand that nobody wants to be fired, but it's a reality in any business.

Please give me some examples you want the organization to do that you believe we are not doing that would make us better? 

Fundamental errors need to be cleaned up.  I could be wrong but it seemed like they played better fundamental baseball under Kelly. Better base running, better fielding decisions.  Other players seem to learn batting practice is for more than just mashing home runs.  There is the pitching development algorithm that seems to be broken

Antony is in the best position to know what is wrong in the system. The problem comes is that also would beg the question why didn't he work at fixing it.  

It is likely that anyone the Twins hire would likely not have been a GM previously, or a miserable failure at one earlier. All you  get a different perspective from what was done before.  The right answer is not always clear except to the 20-20 hindsight.   Some of the processes that led to some of the debacle may not be fixable under the ownership group as the ownership does have directives.,  

I had read somewhere that Luhnow thought that any one of his assistants could be a GM. Great opinion to have. Pitching he had developed? Great trades he has done? Draft management other than Correa(which may or may not have been determined from time in St Louis.  Uh, why would you want someone from Houston?  What other organization has been consistently good with similar resources? St Louis. Hello, that is where Luhnow came from.  

Hire a Manager who's experienced, not part of the Country Club

 

Stop signing veteran #4/5 starters and hope that fixes the pitching problem

 

Consider defense (Suzuki C, Nunez SS, Sano RF... with a rotation that doesn't strike anyone out)

 

Whatever is being done to develop minor leaguers... do something different

 

Stop rushing hitters through AA/AAA, and at the same time stop moving Pitchers painfully slow through those levels.  How is it possible Nick Burdi's younger brother reached AAA in his draft year, but Nick spent most of his time in Cedar Rapids?

 

Stop handing out extensions multiple years before they are needed to players having a career year. 

 

Try selling high at some point... For example, how many more years will Brian Dozier have good trade value? 

 

Stop signing DH's... especially ones that can't actually hit. 

 

Do whatever the Cardinals, Giants, Cubs, etc. are doing

 

And most importantly... release Danny Santana so the manager stops playing him. 

These are mostly criticism of TR, and anecdotal rather than systemic problems that can be said to be the result of organizational flaws.    I certainly hope Jack doesn't respond to something so heavy-handed.     

I'm not sure I understand.  The question was what should the organization do that they are not currently doing.  I listed a bunch of examples

 

Signing #4/5 veteran starters with limited to no upside is not a systematic issue plaguing this team and franchise?

You don't understand the difference between anecdotal and systemic problems?  He wasn't looking for examples--WE ALL KNOW THE EXAMPLES.   He's looking for specific suggestions about changes in approaches, operations, and philosophy.   

Suggesting that we do what the Giants/Cards are doing is like saying; JUST GET BETTER.   Suggesting that they shouldn't sign number 5 starters long term is like saying: JUST DON'T BE STUPID.  The point is to offer forward-looking advice, not hind-sight criticism.

I'll offer a few.

* The organization was too risk-adverse.  We needed to take more risks on bigger contracts, even if they didn't pan out, rather than playing it safe with mid-rotation starters (who may only hurt slightly less if they don't work out). 

* Cut bait, loyalty only goes so far.   This is why trading Meyers perhaps shows a change in philosophy. 

* Sell high on players on short term contracts.  This is why trading Nunez can be seen as an asset. 

* Bring in outside organizational people, no matter who is the GM.

* Figure out what happened at Spring Training this year, where the team wasn't ready to play.  If that means gutting the minor league coaches, and some major league one's so be it.

(And just to be clear, I'm a proponent of hiring someone from outside; but I'm not going to ignore what Anthony has done that's different from TR has done.)

How is the first not "something to do different", exactly?

 

I mean, if we were literally asked "what would you do differently", isn't the correct response to point out things actually done, that we would not do?

Is that even the GMs call? And I was taking the list as a whole; simply telling the next GM to fire the coach without adding what you hope to accomplish other than devaluing loyalty isn't useful at all.

FIRE THE BAD PEOPLE! is no advice at all.

I'll also add that I think hiring a Consulting Firm might do more than simply help in getting the next GM.  I hope, and I imagine, that there's an internal audit, where they are doing gap-assessment analysis (i.e. figuring out organizationally where the gaps are in what they should be doing/what their competitors are doing).  

It's easy identify the problem, it's far more complicated to assess why that problem occurred...was it the result of organizational and procedural flaws, or was it the result of poor decision-making, and what kinds of protocol can be put in place to safeguard such risk to poor decision-making...

You basically said a lot of what I did, in different terms.  

Yup, I didn't just identify the problem, I attempted to assess why those problems occur.  There's a meaningful difference between the two lists, as I've explained.  

Signing mid-rotation starters to long term contracts did happen three times in two years, but the systemic problem is that which underlies such decisions, which far harder to root out and assess than merely point them out...

Hire a Manager who's experienced, not part of the Country Club

MAKE SURE TO CHECK HIS MEMBERSHIP CARD.  Come on. That doesn't give much if any guidance, beyond devaluing loyalty.   

Ok. Next time I will be sure to include multiple paragraphs under each bullet point to fully explain my point... for anyone that couldn't infer what I meant by "Stop signing limited upside #4/5 starters"

Who knows what you inferred.  Do you think it's problem of poor decision making or an organizational flaw?  And what is that flaw, do you think it's risk aversion (as I said) or do you think it's problem with scouting.  And if it's poor decision making was it TR's alone or others too? And how does an organization safe guard against that?  

Just stop acting like there is no nuance to the job the next GM inherits.  The actual, systemic issues are NOT obvious; they are embedded and take effort to root out. 

They simply hired a person who had no experience but was familiar to them.  

I wouldn't frame Paul Molitor quite that way.  He's not Joe Vavra.  

I specifically mentioned loyalty as problem, but the hiring of the next coach is far more complex than that.  

Fellas, fellas. You're both pretty enough to take to the dance. 

But I'm the prettiest.  And clearly, I won't be going with you.  Pfft.