mikelink45

This one is really baffling. Is there a page 2 with the real reasons he should rank so high? I need some logic - some made up analytic or something to justify some of these ranks. Duquette is like so many on this list and probably left off. He inherits talant, he squanders talent, he leaves just before the talent takes off - this has been too common and if he was really good he would know what was coming and not leave. I continue to enjoy the postings, but some of these really have me confused.

Now we have a profile that speaks of excellence. The leadership he showed in promoting and recruiting African American and Latino players is what really stands out. He assembled the team and put the right leadership together to become champions. Thanks for the outstanding insight - I love seeing the names of players I cheered as a kid - and for bringing Joe Brown back to our attention.

This seems like the right rank, but it reminds me of why I would not elect umpires, executives, and managers to the Hall of Fame - players only. We just do not have good metrics to judge these men. This was a good story and his family pedigree is quite outstanding, although we could also say it is a reminder of the good old boy system that used to dominate the sport. It is true that trades were the currency of the day. Does signing good young talent reflect on the GM or the scouts? Soon Steinbrenner will demonstrate that it can be a reflection of the owner. I cannot say he was not good, but the stories do not jump out at me as great. But once again I can only reflect on how few GMs really left a mark - Veeck, Rickey...

Nice story but once again I would put this man at 25, not 20. One good story does not make prove what a career would have been. I see the stories for your current 25 - 23 being much more compelling than #21 and #20

You need a staff - why quibble? Bender, Morris, Koosman, Rube Walberg, Goltz and Aaron Sele fills out the rotation. Same with bullpen - you need a full pen - Burgmeier, Thielbar, Niedenfuer, Hamburger and Perkins I also want to add Johnny Blanchard to the team. He played on great yankee teams and even as a bench guy he made some wonderful contributions. I am surprised that Rip Ripulski or Jim Eisenriech were not one of the outfielders. They would have to be on the bench.

I would agree that Cashman is hard to figure. He gets his highest grades for threading the minefield of Steinbrenner interference, but on the other hand did the things that worked come from him or his boss? Without George the quality and feel for the team has diminished. I think he would be #25 for me.

Interesting choice - certainly not on my list. He certainly must be accountable for want you stated - Campbell proved unable to replace them, principally because the Tigers were much less adept in the early years of the draft than they had been in the previous era of amateur free agents. I liked your first three better than this one.

As I read this series I am struck by how the GM job has evolved. The old GMs were part of the team executives - the management of operations - and seldom were recognized unless they owned the team like Connie Mack. The signing of players was a free for all and the teams acquired new players by trade - like Billy Beane is now doing, but now it is stats and free agents that prevail.

Considering the Steinbrenner affect - if you chose winning as the ultimate it was always the Yankees GM that would rank highest. This is a really enjoyable series and I look forward to seeing who will be on the list. Does Connie Mack and his championships followed by his decimation of his team (like Miami does) keep him in the good column? Does the notoriety of Trader Lane and Bill Veeck make them genius's too? Will Branch Rickey get a boost from Jackie Robinson or a knock for his overt penuriousness? In history, most GMs were faceless and nameless. In the 1950s the three above were the only one's I knew. Of course Charley Finley created a great team, ugly uniforms and then destroyed all he did. Where does he land? We have Rickey, McPhail senior, Barrow, and Weiss in the Hall of Fame so that must give them a boost, but then the HOF does not necessarily make good decisions on GMs, owners and others who are around the playing field. For example Pat Gillick - a genius in one place, not so good in another, but with lots of friends gets elected. Today Billy Beane has to rank at the top despite the prejudice that Moneyball might create against him. Walk Jocketty keeps putting winning teams together without a book and would be the next best. Theo Epstein still needs to win with the cubs (and I think he will) to be near the top. Andrew Friedman has been great - what happens without his personal manager? Brian Sabean is great every other year and that is really outstanding. Kenny Williams has done wondrous things with Chicago's other team and should get the cut. Thanks for generating a lot of ideas.

I have to join the others who were not enamored by Mussina. I cannot put him above Kaat or Tommy John and I would not vote for them. I like the controversy and continual tear letting that keeping Rose, Jackson, Bonds, and Clemens out causes and their exclusion is okay. Piazza would have joined the four that were elected. That would have been my ballot. Good, even a short period of great is not what I want in the hall, but then I would vacuum up a few plaques that are already there. A player like Griffey - next year is easy and that is what I want in the hall. As much as Raines is a sabermetric darling, he was just an all star in his day and not considered an all time great.