Round 1 of voting had a few surprises. Kenny Williams does not make it past the first round of voting. Dave Dombrowski just barely edged him out. In my opinion, the AL Central has the worst collection in baseball and this is evidenced by the close spread of votes for worst GM within the AL Central division. The next surprise was the presence of Billy Beane. Yes, the A's have not made the playoffs since 2006 and yes, they've had issues getting past the first round of voting, but this has largely been the byproduct of rebuilding and sample size (respectively). Beane has built up one of the best minor league systems in baseball right now (all of whom are about ready to break into the majors simultaneously) and, despite the bad "buy low on veterans" free agency deals he's made in the past two seasons, Beane has nonetheless built a superb pitching staff anchored by quality defense going into 2010. Criticize him all you want, but Beane is one of baseball's most revolutionary minds and the new wave of GMs with an eye of stats -- from Theo Epstein to Jack Zduriencik -- can thank Beane (and DePodesta) for paving the way for them. Personally, I would voted for Tony Reagin of the Angels; despite the success the Angels have had under his reign, almost all of it has been collusive luck. The AL West has some strong GMs. I'm also shocked Jon Daniels is also moving on to round 2; he turned baseball's most barren farm system into gold in just 3 years time.
Now we enter round 2 of voting. In round 2, cast your vote for the worst GM of each division. The GM with the most votes for "worst GM" will move on to round 3. There will also be a wild card in each league. Voting for round 2 will be open until February 25. You can cast your vote by clicking the giant blue link atop the page or by clicking HERE (sorry, but voting for round 2 has closed).
Below are the results for round 1 (click to enlarge). Thank you for the votes!
7 comments:
Tony Reagin of the Angels is actually one of the best GM's. He was mentored by one of my favorites of all time, Bill Stoneman.
I am sort of surprised on some of the voting. The Al Central does have very bad GM's.
Billy Beane sucks now and absolutely the bottom two in that league. You've successfully convinced me that Zduriencik is a top five GM and I agree with Cubsfan4evr about Reagin.
Ever since Moneyball came out- the game has changed and adapted and Beane hasn't adapted to it. Hence, why the A's keep missing the playoffs and not winning games.
I am surprised about Kenny Williams and the fact that the was in the "top" on the AL Central though
1) Dayton Moore deserves the #1 spot in the AL central.
2) Beane has adapted. Look at the reloading he's done. The team has amazing talent and it wont cost him any thing. Every team has to rebuild. The A's were great for 9 consecutive seasons. It's their rebuilding years. They will be amazing starting in 2011.
Yeah look where all that reloading has gotten him- 3rd place in the division- and with the Rangers good young pitching corps in the minors, the Angels ability to spend money, and Z being really smart up there in Seattle, I don't predict the A's going to the playoffs any time soon.
And clearly I'm not the only one that thinks that considering Beane moved on and it wasn't even close
I think Kenny is worse for one main reason- the Sox have money at their disposal and the Royals do not. It's a shit ton easier to win games when you can spend money to build the team you want. I'm not excusing Moore because he still makes awful decisions, but Kenny has the ability to spend all the money he needs to- similar to the Yankees and Red Sox (obviously to a lesser extent, but you get the idea)- and still puts out a shitty team.
I give him all the credit in the world for the putting together the 2005 team, but like Beane, you need to adapt and go with the game to continually put out a winning team
I think Kenny is 1 and Moore is 2, but I don't think I was clear when I was surprised that Kenny was in the "top" of the AL Central- meaning he was one of the bottom two vote getters.
Although, I was just thinking you can make a great argument for Bill Smith to be #2 (or 1). I think people see this Twins team and they assume it's because of him, but they don't realize this farm system and team is because of Terry Ryan, Smith's precedent.
Smith let go of Johan Santana (they had the money to keep him)to basically sign Michael Cuddyer and then trading away Matt Garza AND Jason Bartlett for Delmon Young- two AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL decisions. Plus, Smith was responsible for the shit the Twins got back for Johan Sure it was a nice flip- Gomez for Hardy- but considering this is what you're getting for one of the greatest pitchers in the past 7 years or so- that might be worse than anything Kenny and Moore have done.
Are you seriously fucking kidding me? Every team has to eventually reload or their payroll would be $200 million. Oakland is one of the bottom 7 revenue teams in baseball. He's adapted JUST fine.
You know the link at the top of GOI still says Round 1 right? anyways,
yeah Beane's adapted just fine by not making the playoffs
2008- Oakland- 4th in division
2007- Oakland- 3rd in division
2006- Oakland- 3rd in division
2005- Oakland- 1st in division
2004- Oakland- 2nd in division
The A's have only made the playoffs once in the past five years. Billy Beane WAS good, he's lost his touch.
People like you still romanticize Beane because of Moneyball, but he's not the same GM since Moneyball. Plus since the book, his owners have been giving him more money to play with and he still doesn't make the playoffs
I think TBO posted an article awhile back about how baseballprospectus sucks now and sites like fangraphs are the new and better thing and they start off the article with with like a comparison of Beane to BP about how they both suck now. While I'm butchering and don't remember the humor, people are starting to come back to Earth about Beane.
OK the A's have a good farm system, big whoop. The Rangers have a good pitching farm system and a proven young offense. The Angels don't need a farm system per se because they can just spend the money- and they have and they've won games and divisions.
So now it's b/w Beane and Z, two guys taking the same approach- and guess what, Z's doing it better.
Beane's team may be better in 2011, but he still won't get past 3rd in division.
I feel sorry for Beane about the low payroll. I do. And I understand it's hard to build a winning team with very little money, but if Beane was this great GM like everyone who read Moneyball thinks he is, then the A's should be better.
Would the A's win more games without Beane, probably not? But if you're asking me and others to choose him out of only three other choices AND you need to pick two, of course Beane is going to move on.
In fact, I picked Beane again because I think the Rangers are a better team now than the A's and will be a better team going forward than the A's. So why should I fault the Rangers GM and have him go forward just because I liked Moneyball?
If Beane was in any other division, he probably wouldn't have moved on. But he's not as good as everyone thinks he has the bad luck of his division being good and only having four teams.
So make your rebuttal and let's move on. Continually arguing about this is like trying to teach a 5th grader calculus or making rational arguments to a woman- you're just going to end up talking to yourself.
Post a Comment