PDA

View Full Version : Reds interview Phillies Asst. GM



Willy
01-29-2006, 10:05 PM
Add one more name to the list of candidates vying to become the next Reds general manager.
The club announced Sunday that Phillies assistant GM Mike Arbuckle would be the seventh person to get an interview. A scheduled date wasn't revealed but it was believed likely to happen some time this week.

Last week, new owner/chief executive officer Bob Castellini dismissed GM Dan O'Brien in his first major decision after taking over. Baseball operations director Brad Kullman has been serving as interim GM.

Arbuckle joined the Phillies as scouting director following the 1992 season after 12 years as a scout in the Braves organization. The 55-year-old has been given credit for building the Philadelphia farm system and became player development director in 2000 before assuming the assistant GM title in 2001.

Kullman is one of four internal candidates for the job besides international scouting director Johnny Almaraz, special assistant to the GM Leland Maddox and special advisor Jim Beattie.

Other external contenders besides Arbuckle are Cardinals assistant GM John Mozeliak and Twins assistant GM Wayne Krivsky.

Arbuckle interviewed this off-season for the Phillies GM job that went to Pat Gillick. He also had interviews in recent years for GM posts in Boston, Pittsburgh and Toronto


http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060129&content_id=1303239&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Aronchis
01-29-2006, 10:09 PM
I would love to see the uproar if Arbuckle got the job, though I don't think he has a shot.

Team Clark
01-29-2006, 11:18 PM
EXCELLENT choice. Geez. I can't say how much respect he has in Baseball. WOW. This is good news.

jmcclain19
01-29-2006, 11:24 PM
http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/columnists2005/051122callis.html


Track Records Of Success

The Phillies keep coming up just short in the National League playoff race despite an impressive pipeline of homegrown talent. Assistant GM Mike Arbuckle was Philadelphia's scouting director from 1993-2001, drafting Pat Burrell, Ryan Howard, Ryan Madson, Jason Michaels, Brett Myers, Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley and Randy Wolf.

Arbuckle's picks also included Adam Eaton, Johnny Estrada, Scott Rolen and Derrick Turnbow, whom the Phillies let slip away. Gillick may have Hall of Fame credentials, but Arbuckle is more likely to stick around for the long haul.


Mike Arbuckle

Year Team Title Function
1993 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
1994 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
1995 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
1996 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
1997 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
1998 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
1999 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
2000 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
2001 Philadelphia Phillies Director of Scouting
Scouting Director
2002 Philadelphia Phillies Assistant GM, Scouting / Player Development

2003 Philadelphia Phillies Assistant GM, Scouting / Player Development
Assistant GM
2004 Philadelphia Phillies Assistant GM, Scouting / Player Development
Assistant GM
2005 Philadelphia Phillies Assistant GM, Scouting / Player Development
Assistant GM

M2
01-29-2006, 11:44 PM
EXCELLENT choice. Geez. I can't say how much respect he has in Baseball. WOW. This is good news.

The guy's a slobbering moron. In 13 seasons on his watch, the Phillies have produced exactly three pitchers - Randy Wolf, Brett Myers and Ryan Madson. That's it. Three pitchers, 13 years.

Go back and take a look at Phillies top 10 lists from the past decade. Yeah, they've churned out a few players in that time - Scott Rolen being the sole great player from the bunch with Ryan Howard as the other guy who maybe could join him in those ranks. Yet most of it is a comedy routine. The Phillies run one of the LEAST productive systems in baseball. If the Reds bring in the chucklehead who's overseen that nasty bit of work then you might as euthanize this franchise.

paulrichjr
01-29-2006, 11:44 PM
EXCELLENT choice. Geez. I can't say how much respect he has in Baseball. WOW. This is good news.


The Geez comment and the respect comment above this post confuses me. Are you guys serious and this is a good sign or are you being sarcastic. I seriously cannot tell anymore.

Henry Clay
01-30-2006, 12:06 AM
The guy's a slobbering moron.

I think "slobbering moron" is a bit extreme. Although the Phillies haven't been that productive in generating high end pitchers, they have generated a lot more coveted players than the Reds have generated in recent years. I don't know how many of the young pitchers I saw play for the Phillies between 1998 and 2002 when I lived in Philly, but they generated far more than the Reds. Some were acquired in trades (e.g. Padilla), but Arbuckle was in scouting, so he deserves some credit for the acquired pitchers, too. He also ran the development system that has staffed the team AND provided a good amount of midseason trade bait every year. Those are markers of a good farm system that are often mutually exclusive when you look across baseball. The Braves are the best example of a team that can do both really well.

The Phillies have been in contention the past few years, despite playing in the NL East, having Ed Wade running the show, and having a series of soap operas occur in the clubhouse. Arbuckle deserves some credit for the team's success and young talent during that period. He is not my choice for GM, or in the top tier going into the interviews, but I would hardly characterize him as a moron or his work as covered in slobber.

CincyRedsFan30
01-30-2006, 12:26 AM
I wouldn't worry too much about him getting hired,folks. The chances of that happening are likely very minimal. Just an interview.

SteelSD
01-30-2006, 12:29 AM
Heh. When I first read this thread title, I thought the Reds were going to interview Ed Wade.

'Cause the abbreviation of "Assitant" is "Asst".

CincyRedsFan30
01-30-2006, 12:31 AM
Heh. When I first read this thread title, I thought the Reds were going to interview Ed Wade.

'Cause the abbreviation of "Assitant" is "Asst".

:laugh:

I didn't think specifically of Wade, but when I saw it, I did a double-take too. They are going to interview a "Donkey GM." ;)

I definitely wouldn't want him getting the job.

SteelSD
01-30-2006, 12:38 AM
:laugh:

I didn't think specifically of Wade, but when I saw it, I did a double-take too. They are going to interview a "Donkey GM." ;)

I definitely wouldn't want him getting the job.

I'm going into Best Buy tomorrow to buy a laptop. And if the salesman doesn't give me the info I need, I'm for sure going to ask to speak with the Ass. Manager. ;)

Sounds like a strip club employee title. "Yo! Shaniqua! We got a problem. You need to go speak with the Ass. Manager."

cincinnati chili
01-30-2006, 12:39 AM
I posted this interview on another thread, but I'll put it up again:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1485751.html

I don't know enough about the Phillies off the top of my head to call him a slobbering moron, but he's never impressed me.

He's way too tool-infatuated and too oblivious to the benefits of data-driven analysis.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I thought it was interesting:

-In that interview he says that there's a trend in hiring GMs that are lawyers and Ivy League Graduates. If I'm not mistaken, at the time of the interview only two GMs were attorneys (Theo and Garagiola) and only one was an Ivy League graduate (Theo).

CincyRedsFan30
01-30-2006, 12:42 AM
:)

So basically he is a tools-guy, meaning he would be Jim Bowden II. No thanks.

Of course, that would explain the thread title. ;)

M2
01-30-2006, 01:01 AM
I think "slobbering moron" is a bit extreme. Although the Phillies haven't been that productive in generating high end pitchers, they have generated a lot more coveted players than the Reds have generated in recent years. I don't know how many of the young pitchers I saw play for the Phillies between 1998 and 2002 when I lived in Philly, but they generated far more than the Reds. Some were acquired in trades (e.g. Padilla), but Arbuckle was in scouting, so he deserves some credit for the acquired pitchers, too. He also ran the development system that has staffed the team AND provided a good amount of midseason trade bait every year. Those are markers of a good farm system that are often mutually exclusive when you look across baseball. The Braves are the best example of a team that can do both really well.

The Phillies have been in contention the past few years, despite playing in the NL East, having Ed Wade running the show, and having a series of soap operas occur in the clubhouse. Arbuckle deserves some credit for the team's success and young talent during that period. He is not my choice for GM, or in the top tier going into the interviews, but I would hardly characterize him as a moron or his work as covered in slobber.

I thought I was being generous to the guy. Let's compare the Phillies 1998-2002 prospects list vs. the Reds.

PHILLIES

The good -

Jimmy Rollins
Pat Burrell
Randy Wolf
Brett Myers
Derrick Turnbow
Ryan Madson
Chase Utley

So thats the three pitchers I mentioned. One's at a crossroads due to injury. One just had his first good season. The other has been a solid middle reliever (and could blossom into a solid starter). Turnbow blossomed five years and two organizations after he left Philly. Rollins isn't anything special. Utley's a platoon 2B who just had his first good season at age 26. Burrell's been up and down.

The blah -

Bobby Estalella
Marlon Anderson
Adam Eaton
Eric Valent
Reggie Taylor
Carlos Silva
Marlon Byrd

Eaton's never had an above average ERA. Silva did for the Twins last season, but that was done with mirrors.

The rest -

Ryan Brannan
Carlton Loewer
Dave Coggin
Rob Burger
Brad Baisley
Carlos Duncan
Jorge Padilla
Doug Nickle
Josue Perez
Andy Machado
Brandon Duckworth
Gavin Floyd
Taylor Buchholz
Miguel Ascencio

Baisley had buzz once upon a time. Buchholz and Duckworth did too and they helped fetch Billy Wagner. So that's something. Floyd's been wildly overpromoted (for which Arbuckle deserves some blame) and he's been ripped pretty well in AAA and the majors showing stuff that's nowhere near as electric as it was billed.

REDS

The Good -

Aaron Boone
Jason LaRue
Austin Kearns
Scott Williamson
Adam Dunn
Ben Broussard

Dunn's the best player on either list. Williamson won the ROY. LaRue's a solid catcher. Kearns, frustrating as he is, has an .821 OPS (Burrell's at .834). Boone's made an All-Star team and has himself 95 career Win Shares. LaRue's a solid catcher. Broussard's been a borderline guy here, but he's got a 109 career OPS+.

The Blah -

Damian Jackson
John Riedling

No arguing, that's thin.

The Rest -

Jim Crowell
DeWayne Wise
Scott Winchester
Gookie Dawkins
Pat Watkins
Buddy Carlyle
Brandon Larson
Mike Frank
Pedro Minaya
Jacobo Sequea
Ty Howington
Antonio Perez
Alejandro Diaz
David Espinosa
Dustin Moseley
Dane Sardinha
Ray Olmedo

Howington was a hot property that fizzled. Sequea (along with B.J. Ryan, who worked out all right) helped fetch Juan Guzman for the 1999 stretch run. Perez, Espinosa and Olmedo may all have futures as bench players.

The Phils run a bit ahead because of the Blah list, but then take a look at the young players the Reds added in the 1998-2002 time frame - Sean Casey, Danny Graves, Dmitri Young, Paul Konerko (who fetched Mike Cameron, who fetched Jr.), Wily Mo Pena, Edwin Encarnacion.

The Phils added Bob Abreu (big score) and Vicente Padilla. I won't get into the rocket science of running off Scott Rolen or the dog of a deal the Phils made with the Cardinals when he got sent away.

Scouting's not just the draft, it's being able to identify guys worth plucking from other organizations. Add these guys into the drafted prospects list and the two systems come out just about dead even.

So I ask you, how many kind words should I address toward a guy who's run a Reds-comparable system?

Team Clark
01-30-2006, 01:04 AM
The Geez comment and the respect comment above this post confuses me. Are you guys serious and this is a good sign or are you being sarcastic. I seriously cannot tell anymore.

The "geez" comment is a BIG Positive. I was in shock when I heard he was on the list. There are not enough words for me to express how important it would be to have Mr. Arbuckle at the helm.

Cooper
01-30-2006, 01:06 AM
Team Clark: you infered a couple of weeks ago that Kullman wasn't ready to be GM. Folks followed up with questions but i'm not sure i saw a reply --could you let us know why you feel Kullman isn't ready and maybe you could let us know why arbuckle is so respected.

Team Clark
01-30-2006, 01:51 AM
Brad is more qualified now for the position then he was the last go around. Just want to get that out of the way. HOWEVER, (and I know this with CERTAINTY) he is regarded as a "punk" throughout baseball.

Brad EXPECTS to be named the GM from Mr. Castellini and has already embrassed himself in their 5 hour + meetings with senior staff. HE INSISTED on being referred to as the GM in all conversations with other teams as well as nailing down who is where in the Chain of Command. I've had a couple people tell me that Mr. Castellini actually made reference in the paper to Brad getting mad by not being referrred to as the GM. If anybody had a problem with Brad before, well they certainly have one now. I have spoken to TWO people who I have known for YEARS who were part of those ongoing meetings. I wish I could put the audio of our conversations on here. Zoners would either howl with laughter or cry for Mercy. This guy is no GM. He's an IT guy who got lucky. (Remind you of anyone? Brad's mentor?) I spoke with an agent yesterday that is pretty close to Brad and even he commented on Brad's attitude. Keep in mind these two are close... he called him "pompous" as full of himself as ever. I recall the last time he was named co-Gm, Interim, whatever... Same stuff. On air with Fuhrman he was contrite. From what I hear he was the same a few days ago and even answered some questions with Noises instead of words. Sounds like Brad to me. When other teams were literally lining up to get Boone, Williamson etc during the fire sale, a lot of execs were VERY dissapointed and angered by his candor. Leland Maddox was really the guy other teams dealt with. Brad thinks his #^$ doesn't stink. He pays very little respect to anyone. Not to mention he is not skilled in the Baseball side. Brad does a good job with contracts. No problem there. He opened the Reds eyes to some new computer programs and was in charge of centralizing the Reds IT systems. He's responsible for the Reds hooking up with Inside Edge scouting. All this but Brad could no more tell you about footwork, arm angles, arm action, make-up, etc than a salesman at Montgomery Ford. He's just been around long enough to be one of the last men standing.

Now, Mr. Arbuckle. M2 doesn't care for him but in Baseball circles he's very well thought of. (BTW I love M2's posts because he comes prepared and make you think) I'd work for Mr. Arbuckle in a heartbeat. He's an excellent evaluator. He worked under Paul Snyder who is the best ever. I didn't read the interview posted but I KNOW from personal conversations with him that he is not a "Bowden 5 tool guy". He wants to evaluate all aspects of a players performance. He wants to know and has the ability to ascertain "Can the kid play"? You do not need a ton of stat sheets to figure that out. It always amazes me that fans who really do not have the ability to figure out the difference between player A or B always throw lists and forked tongued opinons out. Scouting and Player Development is EXTREMELY difficult. As it has been explained many times in many different ways. Each year the draft may net you 1 or 2 guys that will end up making an impact in the big leagues. 1 or 2. We have fans blasting Scouting directors, farm directors, etc... for that. Rounds 20 on are to fill roster space with talent. FILL ROSTER SPACE with guys worth putting money into. Guys that can play and if they really work hard may make it to AAA. Roy Clark from the Braves once told me. "ANYONE can pick a first rounder. Find me the kid in the 12th round that will make it before the first round pick". He's right. BTW, Mr. Arbuckle had an excellent track record in Atlanta and many thought he would come back to succeed Mr. Schuerholz.

M2
01-30-2006, 02:06 AM
He wants to evaluate all aspects of a players performance. He wants to know and has the ability to ascertain "Can the kid play"? You do not need a ton of stat sheets to figure that out. It always amazes me that fans who really do not have the ability to figure out the difference between player A or B always throw lists and forked tongued opinons out.

Then explain Arbuckle's putrid track record in Philly.

In 13 years he's found he's found exactly two guys outside of the first two rounds (the Ryans, Howard and Madson). Cleary Arbuckle can't figure out who can play this game. He doesn't even have a particularly high hit rate on his top picks either.

He's exactly what the Reds need to avoid, a self-aggrandizing institutional animal trying to get by on bravado instead of accomplishment.

Cooper
01-30-2006, 02:24 AM
I'm confused --why would other teams be upset with Kullman's candor? Usually in cases where there is going to be an exchange of goods -folks appreciate candor.

To be bluntly honest, it appears you come from a different philosophical place. His is a sabermetric place whereas yours is from a scouting background. Is that fair to say?

CincyRedsFan30
01-30-2006, 02:35 AM
I'm with Cooper and M2 here.

No offense, Team Clark, but it seems your thoughts on Kullman vs. Arbuckle stem more from your personal thoughts on how they go about making baseball decisions than on their actual potential of being good as a GM. I'm not saying that you can't see talent, but I think your points highlighted not why Kullman would be a bad GM and Arbuckle a good GM, but rather why you like Arbuckle's methodology over Kullman's in terms of what to look for in evaluating players.

Arbuckle might be "well regarded" by some, however, he simply hasn't helped the Phillies produce any large quantity of talent during his time in his current position.

Kullman is also an unkown, but it is pretty well documented that he is more of a sabermetric type guy who managed to help net us some good deals after Bowden's firing under very difficult circumstances.

As Cooper said, it seems you are talking more about why you don't agree with the way Kullman goes about doing business and like the way Arbuckle goes about doing business as opposed to giving reasons as to why Arbuckle has been good and why Kullman would not be good as a GM.

SteelSD
01-30-2006, 02:46 AM
Roy Clark from the Braves once told me. "ANYONE can pick a first rounder. Find me the kid in the 12th round that will make it before the first round pick". He's right.

The Producers:

Jimmy Rollins- 2nd Round 1996 (46th Overall)
Pat Burrell- 1st Round 1998 (1st Overall)
Randy Wolf- 2nd Round 1997 (54th Overall)
Brett Myers- 1st Round 1999 (12th Overall)
Ryan Madson- 9th Round 1998 (254th Overall)
Chase Utley- 1st Round 2000 (15th Overall)
Ryan Howard- 5th Round 2001 (140th Overall)
Scott Rolen- 2nd Round 1993 (46th Overall)
Jason Michaels- 4th Round 1998 (104th Overall)

The Current Hype:

Gavin Floyd- 1st Round 2001 (4th Overall)

TC, I don't see any evidence that Arbuckle has the ability to value engineer low draft picks into successful productive MLB players. The guy has basically three "hits" ever above pick number 54 overall and one selection above #140 overall who's had anything more than moderate success during his long tenure. He's been with the Phillies in a position to oversee drafts for at least 12 years now it appears. The last three are certainly too soon to expect draft talent to be popping out. But the first 9 have given the Phillies exactly nine productive players to work with.

And I'm probably being generous with the word "productive". Took six years for Brett Myers to put up a below-average ERA. Patt Burrell and Jimmy Rollins have been very inconsistent. Madson is a decent reliever. Likewise, Wolf is a decent Starter who's matched 200 IP with a sub-4.00 ERA exactly once. Michaels may be solid if given the opportunity in Cleveland, but he's yet to post a season of more than 300 AB. Took Utley five years to post his first above-average OPS at the MLB level. Howard looks to be a keeper. Rolen is the best player drafted on Arbuckle's watch if Arbuckle was actually in charge of putting together the 1993 draft.

Personally, I think we'd be pushing it to say that Arbuckle has actually value engineered at the top of the drafts he's been in charge of. But after that, there's virtually no one that's helped the club do much of anything. In short, it appears that Arbuckle is the template of the guy Roy Clark was telling you about. Just in the bad way.

BCubb2003
01-30-2006, 02:50 AM
So who would be the best drafter? The diamond in the rough finder?

Ron Madden
01-30-2006, 02:56 AM
So who would be the best drafter? The diamond in the rough finder?

Good question. :)

Sure looks like it aint Arbuckle. ;)

Cooper
01-30-2006, 02:57 AM
My biggest fear about a sabermetric type getting the job is that he'll be gently sabotaged by no-sabermetric types..ala DePodesta. Imo, there will be a battle that will take place inside the organization and if Kullman gets the job he'll have to compete not only with other teams, but with those inside his own organization. He'll have to know chain of command so he can know what kind of authority he has to get things done. If RCass goes with him -he better back him up in a big way cause there is a large amount of animosity toward the saber-rites (it's a holy war, right?).

Ron Madden
01-30-2006, 03:01 AM
Smart teams should use both styles.

Let's hope The Reds are Smart.

Team Clark
01-30-2006, 03:06 AM
The Producers:

Jimmy Rollins- 2nd Round 1996 (46th Overall)
Pat Burrell- 1st Round 1998 (1st Overall)
Randy Wolf- 2nd Round 1997 (54th Overall)
Brett Myers- 1st Round 1999 (12th Overall)
Ryan Madson- 9th Round 1998 (254th Overall)
Chase Utley- 1st Round 2000 (15th Overall)
Ryan Howard- 5th Round 2001 (140th Overall)
Scott Rolen- 2nd Round 1993 (46th Overall)
Jason Michaels- 4th Round 1998 (104th Overall)

The Current Hype:

Gavin Floyd- 1st Round 2001 (4th Overall)

TC, I don't see any evidence that Arbuckle has the ability to value engineer low draft picks into successful productive MLB players. The guy has basically three "hits" ever above pick number 54 overall and one selection above #140 overall who's had anything more than moderate success during his long tenure. He's been with the Phillies in a position to oversee drafts for at least 12 years now it appears. The last three are certainly too soon to expect draft talent to be popping out. But the first 9 have given the Phillies exactly nine productive players to work with.

And I'm probably being generous with the word "productive". Took six years for Brett Myers to put up a below-average ERA. Patt Burrell and Jimmy Rollins have been very inconsistent. Madson is a decent reliever. Likewise, Wolf is a decent Starter who's matched 200 IP with a sub-4.00 ERA exactly once. Michaels may be solid if given the opportunity in Cleveland, but he's yet to post a season of more than 300 AB. Took Utley five years to post his first above-average OPS at the MLB level. Howard looks to be a keeper. Rolen is the best player drafted on Arbuckle's watch if Arbuckle was actually in charge of putting together the 1993 draft.

Personally, I think we'd be pushing it to say that Arbuckle has actually value engineered at the top of the drafts he's been in charge of. But after that, there's virtually no one that's helped the club do much of anything. In short, it appears that Arbuckle is the template of the guy Roy Clark was telling you about. Just in the bad way.


Excellent point. But who are you evaluating Arbuckle against? You should be happy they didn't miss those guys. That happens too. You're making my point of just how difficult the draft and the process that precedes it actually is.

My personal favorite for the job isn't on the list. If I had a choice between a Wayne Krivsky or Michael Hill I would take both above Arbuckle.

M2
01-30-2006, 03:25 AM
So who would be the best drafter? The diamond in the rough finder?

Jim Fleming has done some quality work. He plucked Grady Sizemore and Cliff Lee for the Expos in rounds 3 and 4 of a really bad 2000 draft class. Then he went to the Marlins in 2002 as VP of player development and scouting.

Mike Radcliff has been the SD for the Twins since 1994. I love what they've done in the draft in recent years.

Roy Clark with the Braves does some sweet work. Paul Snyder did it before him.

Grady Fuson has had himself a lot of productive drafts with the A's and Rangers.

Eric Kubota with the A's has kept that organizational pipeline flowing.

The Angels are fat in talent these days thanks to the work of Donny Rowland, who's now the player personnel director in KC.

Roger Jongewaard and Frank Mattox did some yeoman work for the Mariners.

Jack Zduriencik has helped replenish the Brewers.

M2
01-30-2006, 03:34 AM
My biggest fear about a sabermetric type getting the job is that he'll be gently sabotaged by no-sabermetric types..ala DePodesta. Imo, there will be a battle that will take place inside the organization and if Kullman gets the job he'll have to compete not only with other teams, but with those inside his own organization. He'll have to know chain of command so he can know what kind of authority he has to get things done. If RCass goes with him -he better back him up in a big way cause there is a large amount of animosity toward the saber-rites (it's a holy war, right?).

Any new GM with the Reds will have Bob Castellini swinging a considerable hammer for him. Regardless of the bent the new GM has, I'm guessing the fractured regimes we've seen since the Bob Howsam power vacuum are about to become history.

Cooper
01-30-2006, 03:46 AM
I'm not so sure M2. There's so much animosity towards sabermetrics that not only does the GM have to educate the fans, but he/she must also educate the scouting community. The same scouting community that for years did not get evaluated in any numeric way (the reds scouts may still not be evaluated on the talent they find/draft...etc...). Now you got some young pompus IT guy telling you -you are gonna be evaluated.

Lastly, there's so much inertia that goes against anything sabermetric. Allowing for it is not the same as embracing it --if it doesn't get embraced then it gets marginalized in a big way. You may not even hear from the main sabermetric influence in the organization for 2 or 3 years (ala Kullman). I find it odd that Kullman is considered pompous, yet literally kept his mouth shut for 2 years.

BCubb2003
01-30-2006, 03:46 AM
Is there a way to run the draft results through a formula so we could put a number to each drafter's results? I'm sure some of them would blame signability or injuries for their lackluster perfomance, but I'd like to know if a GM scored an 80 on first rounders and a 60 on going deep ...

Cooper
01-30-2006, 03:59 AM
One more point--organizations (just like people) seek equillibrium (sp?). Sabermetrics will throw off the organizations balance and folks (whether they know it or not) will attempt to right the ship. Most of this will occur through sabotage. RCass needs to drive stakes in the ground.

Sometimes organizations drift. None has ever drifted towards sabermetrics. Why is that? Because it takes firm commitment from those involved and if it doesn't feel right to folks they'll sabotage it in a second.

I just believe you can't do sabermetrics half way --you hve to make an organizational commitment to it.

SteelSD
01-30-2006, 04:07 AM
Excellent point. But who are you evaluating Arbuckle against? You should be happy they didn't miss those guys. That happens too. You're making my point of just how difficult the draft and the process that precedes it actually is.

Hold up now, please. You've just told us that ""ANYONE can pick a first rounder."

Yet, through 2001, Arbuckle has flat out missed on 56% of his first rounders even if Floyd makes good. Without Floyd, it's a success rate of 33%. For the first two rounds, Arbuckle has missed on 61% of his total picks (again generously assuming success for Floyd) and the bulk of the "hits" have been only decent. Without Floyd, that's a success rate of...yep...33%.

Now, I don't think you have to run a hit rate of 100% in the first two rounds to be considered a success. But when that's the ONLY place you're getting any kind of result at all? Sorry, I'm not going to give a guy a whole lot of credit for what you've already said "anyone" can do. And frankly, a team like Oakland does a better job of hitting on their top selections (FAR better) than has Philadelphia. I could litter this post with the number of selections they've hit on since just 1997 plus those they've been able to deal for additional value. Don't care if they do it using scouts, stats, or any combination of the two. But if you could show me that Arbuckle was that astute at talent culling, I'd be on board. Unfortunately, it appears he's done little but throw darts at a board.

A success rate of 33% in the first two rounds might be somewhat more acceptable had the Phillies been turning out a goodly number of truly high-level high picks or if those high draft picks that did succeed were making it to the Show quickly or if they were somehow hitting on a goodly number of their later selections. But nope, uh-uh, and nyet. They're missing on a ton of them. It's taking a LONG time for anyone to actually get to the Show much less produce there. And they're getting virtually nothing past the first couple of picks they have. They've had two players they've drafted this century actually help them out.

Sorry, don't see what Arbuckle has done that "anyone" can't do. It might be hard, but the Reds need a guy who makes "hard" look easy rather than the next in a long line of those who makes "hard" look hard.

buckeyenut
01-30-2006, 07:00 AM
My personal favorite for the job isn't on the list. If I had a choice between a Wayne Krivsky or Michael Hill I would take both above Arbuckle.

OK so all you are saying is you prefer Arbuckle over Kullman. Fair enough.

If your favorite isn't on the list, who would he be? What would he bring to the table that the guys on the list don't?

cincinnati chili
01-30-2006, 08:40 AM
Arbuckle's been in Philly 13 years, right?

Does anyone know if Arbuckle has claimed any credit for the Phils' trading for Bobby Abreu, back in the mid-90's?

I kinda doubt it. But if he had any significant part in the decision to acquire a future Hall-of-Famer for Kevin Stocker, that's a feather in his cap.

Most baseball people did not see Abreu's career coming.

WVRed
01-30-2006, 09:24 AM
Jim Fleming has done some quality work. He plucked Grady Sizemore and Cliff Lee for the Expos in rounds 3 and 4 of a really bad 2000 draft class. Then he went to the Marlins in 2002 as VP of player development and scouting.

Mike Radcliff has been the SD for the Twins since 1994. I love what they've done in the draft in recent years.

Roy Clark with the Braves does some sweet work. Paul Snyder did it before him.

Grady Fuson has had himself a lot of productive drafts with the A's and Rangers.

Eric Kubota with the A's has kept that organizational pipeline flowing.

The Angels are fat in talent these days thanks to the work of Donny Rowland, who's now the player personnel director in KC.

Roger Jongewaard and Frank Mattox did some yeoman work for the Mariners.

Jack Zduriencik has helped replenish the Brewers.

And of those listed, only Grady Fuson has been mentioned as a GM candidate.

Stewie
01-30-2006, 09:35 AM
Arbuckle's been in Philly 13 years, right?

Does anyone know if Arbuckle has claimed any credit for the Phils' trading for Bobby Abreu, back in the mid-90's?

I kinda doubt it. But if he had any significant part in the decision to acquire a future Hall-of-Famer for Kevin Stocker, that's a feather in his cap.

Most baseball people did not see Abreu's career coming.

He didn't. The Abreu for Stocker deal was one of the last moves made by Lee Thomas before he got axed and replaced with Wade. And from what I have heard, oddly enough, it was Wade who had scouted Abreu while he was still in the Astros organization.

To be somewhat fair to Arbuckle, he had a lot of help in creating what has become a poor farm system for the Phillies. Outside of the Brians, Sabean and Cashman, I don't think anyone forfeited as many draft picks as Wade did. And given Wade's bizarre obsession with aging players, he never attempted to trade veterans for prospects. Probably the closest thing to a trade of a veteran for prospects Wade made was when he traded Gregg Jefferies for Doug Nickle. However, he then threw Doug Nickle in the Scott Rolen disaster of a trade.

With that said, I do think the Reds could do a lot better than Arbuckle. I do agree with the comments about not getting value after the first couple rounds of the draft, and Arbuckle is very big on tools (you're all familiar with Reggie Taylor). I used to like Arbuckle, however, the longer he has stayed in the Phillies organization, the less and less I like him. While the Reds could probably do worse than Arbuckle (the Phillies other "Ass." GM Ruben Amaro Jr for example, or another "ass" in the Phillies front office -- Dallas Green), I don't see how hiring Arbuckle would be a step in the right direction. At the very best, it'd be a lateral move, and what's the point of that?

M2
01-30-2006, 10:46 AM
Is there a way to run the draft results through a formula so we could put a number to each drafter's results? I'm sure some of them would blame signability or injuries for their lackluster perfomance, but I'd like to know if a GM scored an 80 on first rounders and a 60 on going deep ...

I'd love to see that too. Draft scoring would be an incredibly useful tool.


One more point--organizations (just like people) seek equillibrium (sp?). Sabermetrics will throw off the organizations balance and folks (whether they know it or not) will attempt to right the ship. Most of this will occur through sabotage. RCass needs to drive stakes in the ground.

Sometimes organizations drift. None has ever drifted towards sabermetrics. Why is that? Because it takes firm commitment from those involved and if it doesn't feel right to folks they'll sabotage it in a second.

I just believe you can't do sabermetrics half way --you hve to make an organizational commitment to it.

I agree, but I get the sense that Castellini's going to fully commit to his new GM. If he picks a numbers-oriented baseball chieftan, I figure that person will have carte blanche to hammer all square pegs.

Cooper
01-30-2006, 11:03 AM
So the question of the day is this:

How are scouts evaluated?

Does anyone know? Is there an insider who could tell us what the organization considers important when evaluating a scout? Are evals. based on volume of paperwork? How bout timeliness?

What i'm guessing is- they don't get evaluated for finding talent....they do get evaluated for filling out forms in a timely manner or logging in evals into a computer.

M2
01-30-2006, 11:06 AM
So the question of the day is this:

How are scouts evaluated?

Does anyone know? Is there an insider who could tell us what the organization considers important when evaluating a scout? Are evals. based on volume of paperwork? How bout timeliness?

What i'm guessing is- they don't get evaluated for finding talent....they do get evaluated for filling out forms in a timely manner or logging in evals into a computer.

I'm under the impression it's based on the quality of the anecdotes they tell and how often they're buying, kind of like salesman in the pre-Seibel world. Though I am a cynic on these matters.

Chip R
01-30-2006, 11:06 AM
The guy's a slobbering moron. In 13 seasons on his watch, the Phillies have produced exactly three pitchers - Randy Wolf, Brett Myers and Ryan Madson. That's it. Three pitchers, 13 years.

Not that I'm endorsing this guy but that's 3 more than the Reds have produced. :eek:

M2
01-30-2006, 11:30 AM
Not that I'm endorsing this guy but that's 3 more than the Reds have produced. :eek:

The Reds produced Williamson, Sullivan and Tomko over that same amount of time.

It's amazing how comparable the two organizations are in terms of developmental success.

NewEraReds
01-30-2006, 01:01 PM
this is rediculous. can we interview ONE good, young potential gm. the list keeps getting worse. i dont want to jump the gun here, but comeon cast, interview some decent guys. why did we dump obrien if this is what we are going for in a replacement

NewEraReds
01-30-2006, 01:03 PM
I think "slobbering moron" is a bit extreme. Although the Phillies haven't been that productive in generating high end pitchers, they have generated a lot more coveted players than the Reds have generated in recent years. I don't know how many of the young pitchers I saw play for the Phillies between 1998 and 2002 when I lived in Philly, but they generated far more than the Reds. Some were acquired in trades (e.g. Padilla), but Arbuckle was in scouting, so he deserves some credit for the acquired pitchers, too. He also ran the development system that has staffed the team AND provided a good amount of midseason trade bait every year. Those are markers of a good farm system that are often mutually exclusive when you look across baseball. The Braves are the best example of a team that can do both really well.

The Phillies have been in contention the past few years, despite playing in the NL East, having Ed Wade running the show, and having a series of soap operas occur in the clubhouse. Arbuckle deserves some credit for the team's success and young talent during that period. He is not my choice for GM, or in the top tier going into the interviews, but I would hardly characterize him as a moron or his work as covered in slobber.

thats not how we should det if a guy is good. just because they have done better than cincy doesnt mean that is what we should strive for

Team Clark
01-30-2006, 01:34 PM
Hold up now, please. You've just told us that ""ANYONE can pick a first rounder."

Yet, through 2001, Arbuckle has flat out missed on 56% of his first rounders even if Floyd makes good. Without Floyd, it's a success rate of 33%. For the first two rounds, Arbuckle has missed on 61% of his total picks (again generously assuming success for Floyd) and the bulk of the "hits" have been only decent. Without Floyd, that's a success rate of...yep...33%.

Now, I don't think you have to run a hit rate of 100% in the first two rounds to be considered a success. But when that's the ONLY place you're getting any kind of result at all? Sorry, I'm not going to give a guy a whole lot of credit for what you've already said "anyone" can do. And frankly, a team like Oakland does a better job of hitting on their top selections (FAR better) than has Philadelphia. I could litter this post with the number of selections they've hit on since just 1997 plus those they've been able to deal for additional value. Don't care if they do it using scouts, stats, or any combination of the two. But if you could show me that Arbuckle was that astute at talent culling, I'd be on board. Unfortunately, it appears he's done little but throw darts at a board.

A success rate of 33% in the first two rounds might be somewhat more acceptable had the Phillies been turning out a goodly number of truly high-level high picks or if those high draft picks that did succeed were making it to the Show quickly or if they were somehow hitting on a goodly number of their later selections. But nope, uh-uh, and nyet. They're missing on a ton of them. It's taking a LONG time for anyone to actually get to the Show much less produce there. And they're getting virtually nothing past the first couple of picks they have. They've had two players they've drafted this century actually help them out.

Sorry, don't see what Arbuckle has done that "anyone" can't do. It might be hard, but the Reds need a guy who makes "hard" look easy rather than the next in a long line of those who makes "hard" look hard.

As usual you have missed the point. Also, remember this go back and READ... I did not say anything. Roy Clark was quoted. Roy beats the pants off of anybody on any list. He's forgotten more about baseball, drafts and anything associated with evaluating then all of us combined. I'll take Roy's recommendations over yours ANY DAY. Because he KNOWS what he's talking about. Get your act together before you post. Every time I make a post on here you have some ridiculous comment to make. If you don't like me fine. Move on.

I have always been respectful of others but you just carry it to the max. It appears that you don't even get half of what I am talking about. It's not like I can sit here and post novel night after night. Get a grip. M2 and others at least make a solid point, of which they have even turned my opinion. I respect them greatly Excellent posts.

Cooper
01-30-2006, 01:48 PM
Mr. Clark may have said those things, but on the surface it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would he wait till the 12 round to pick a kid he knows is better than the 1st round? Am i missing something?

Granted Mr. Clark knows more about baseball than i do, but i am having trouble understanding the logic.

SunDeck
01-30-2006, 01:54 PM
I'm going into Best Buy tomorrow to buy a laptop. And if the salesman doesn't give me the info I need, I'm for sure going to ask to speak with the Ass. Manager. ;)

Sounds like a strip club employee title. "Yo! Shaniqua! We got a problem. You need to go speak with the Ass. Manager."

I was an Ass. Manager for a long time before I got my job as the Manager. Sometimes I wish I had my Ass. back.

Or backwards.

M2
01-30-2006, 02:08 PM
As usual you have missed the point. Also, remember this go back and READ... I did not say anything. Roy Clark was quoted. Roy beats the pants off of anybody on any list. He's forgotten more about baseball, drafts and anything associated with evaluating then all of us combined. I'll take Roy's recommendations over yours ANY DAY. Because he KNOWS what he's talking about. Get your act together before you post. Every time I make a post on here you have some ridiculous comment to make. If you don't like me fine. Move on.

I have always been respectful of others but you just carry it to the max. It appears that you don't even get half of what I am talking about. It's not like I can sit here and post novel night after night. Get a grip. M2 and others at least make a solid point, of which they have even turned my opinion. I respect them greatly Excellent posts.

Thanks for the kind words, but I think Steel and I were making pretty much the exact same point.

I appreciate that Roy Clark might like Arbuckle, but when I look at Arbuckle's lack of achievement I'm forced to put this in the category of things that Roy Clark possibly forgot about baseball. And you did offer up Clark's statement about how anyone can score on high draft picks as a measuring stick. I happen to agree, though as evidenced, Arbuckle's not very good on those either. I seems to me that despite your praise for Arbuckle, he fails the test you set up for him. He's got a history that belies an ability to spot players, at least in an executive capacity. Maybe he's a good eyeball scout, but GMs need skills well beyond that. They don't have the time to see every player. Certain analytical skills are needed and Arbuckle seems to be wholly bereft of them.

So my curiosity is, when you sit down and take a hard look at Arbuckle's actual record how do you reconcile that with your upbeat take on the guy? He certainly seems to come up wanting upon closer inspection.

Team Clark
01-30-2006, 02:20 PM
First of all I need to apologize to Steel. I rarely if ever admonish a poster. I sincerely apologize for lashing out at you. Having a rough day and I took it out on you. I truly hope you will forgive me for my words. M2 you and Steel have some great points. Keep in mind I was estatic to hear that the Reds were going to or had interviewed Arbuckle. He's not my first choice but compared to Maddox, Kullman and a few others on the list I'd take him.

I'd like to see the Michael Hill's, Ricky Bennett's and a wild card like a Johnny Almaraz get a shot. Someone who has good credentials and could grow with the owner. I remember Billy Doran telling me that when he was Director of Player Development any time Almaraz said sign a guy they did it immediately. He was rarely if ever wrong. All other scouts recommendations were reviewed and possibly double checked.

Team Clark
01-30-2006, 02:26 PM
Mr. Clark may have said those things, but on the surface it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would he wait till the 12 round to pick a kid he knows is better than the 1st round? Am i missing something?

Granted Mr. Clark knows more about baseball than i do, but i am having trouble understanding the logic.

You don't wait. Sometimes teams analyze too much and miss great prospects in the draft. What Roy was saying from my point of view is that there are big leaguers in round 12 that other teams are missing. The Braves go into every draft believing (and I mean TRULY believing) they have drafted 15-20 big leaguers. Some other teams may believe that as well but in reality they have drafted 1 or none. They can not come to a consensus and pick a guy that has already peaked, doesn't have the make up...etc... Basicaly they gamble a little more reckless. Cooper this is the best way I can explain it without getting Roy to come on here.

Mario-Rijo
01-30-2006, 02:38 PM
The blah -

Bobby Estalella

I agree Bobby Estalella isn't very good, but Johnny Estrada has been pretty good and I believe that is one who should have been on your "Producers List". I guess you could say that yes even you could miss a 1st rounder huh! Just jabbin ya a lil bit, but seriously if you forgot Estrada isn't it possible you may have forgotten a few more players which could change your opinion of Arbuckle? I'm not saying anyones wrong or right but if you are going to base your case on the players and you are forgetting some, who can appreciate your case? Estalella could certainly still fit on your Blah list.

Cooper
01-30-2006, 02:39 PM
enough said...thanks for the info.

Team Clark
01-30-2006, 02:48 PM
enough said...thanks for the info.


Happy to do it. Just love talkin' baseball.

M2
01-30-2006, 02:57 PM
I agree Bobby Estalella isn't very good, but Johnny Estrada has been pretty good and I believe that is one who should have been on your "Producers List". I guess you could say that yes even you could miss a 1st rounder huh! Just jabbin ya a lil bit, but seriously if you forgot Estrada isn't it possible you may have forgotten a few more players which could change your opinion of Arbuckle? I'm not saying anyones wrong or right but if you are going to base your case on the players and you are forgetting some, who can appreciate your case? Estalella could certainly still fit on your Blah list.

Honestly, I was just looking at top 10 guys. You'll note that B.J. Ryan didn't make my Reds list. Jason Michaels is another guy who didn't make a top 10, but who has proven a solid bench player (and obviously the Indians are hoping he'll be even more than that). Along similar lines, how do you properly credit Lance Davis? He was thoroughly mediocre for the 20 starts that his career lasted. Qualitatively speaking, Adam Eaton's been no better. Was it the Reds' scouting department that turned up Elmer Dessens?

I had to pick a cutoff point and I'm fairly well convinced you'd need a diamond-edged spatula to separate the performance of the Phillies system under Arbuckle from the performance of the Reds over the same time.

Henry Clay
01-30-2006, 11:30 PM
thats not how we should det if a guy is good. just because they have done better than cincy doesnt mean that is what we should strive for

The comparison to the Reds isn't to illustrate any measure of success, but because this is a Reds discussion site. The Phillies have, in fact, generated a lot more prospects than the Reds, and they've won a lot more in recent years. Arbuckle would not be my choice for GM, but he is far from a "slobbering moron." The guy built a farm system that was well regarded before the Phillies started dealing away talent to compete in the AL East the past few years. Even after those moves, the Phillies still have young talent in Gavin Floyd, Cole Hamels, Chase Utley, Robinson Tejeda, and Ryan Howard. The roster consists of a number of solid, Phillies grown talent, including a Messrs. Burrell, Rollins, Lieberthal, and Wolf. And yes, their farm system is better than the Reds. The Phillies have also posted winning records in recent years, something the Reds have not done even though the Reds looked much closer to fielding a competitive club in 1999 and 2000. Arbuckle deserves some credit for that. Some of the deals the Reds worked in the past few years were for Phillies' talent, albeit no one outstanding. Still, those types of prospects are important for trade bait during the season. I don't have much respect for Ed Wade and some of his wacky moves that included forfeiting some draft picks, but Arbuckle appears to have been part of generating prospects the league has been interested in for a while. Some of these prospects haven't panned out as billed, including Marlon Byrd and Elizardo Ramirez, but they were among the flocks of prospects once in the Phillies system. Although I'm not in favor of hiring Arbuckle as GM, I'm also not in favor of calling him stupid and throwing a rock through his window. The guy is simply not that bad at what he does.

NewEraReds
01-30-2006, 11:35 PM
and you miss my point. my point WAS, that just because the phillies have been better than the reds, doesnt mean that they have been good enough. if what the phillies have done is what you strive for, fine. its not what im looking for. and i dont want anyone from their screwd up organization

Henry Clay
01-30-2006, 11:42 PM
The Reds produced Williamson, Sullivan and Tomko over that same amount of time.

It's amazing how comparable the two organizations are in terms of developmental success.

I don't think this is right. Do the Reds have a Gavin Floyd or Cole Hamels on the way? Do the Reds have a home-grown guy like Randy Wolf anchoring their rotation? Rob Tejeda did far better in his 13 starts and mixed relief work than any Reds' promotion last year. I guess Brett Myers and Ryan Madson are worth mentioning, as well. Those pitchers are all currently on the Phillies, unlike the Reds' names cited above. I'm not a Phillies' fan, but I like the future of their pitching a lot better than the future of the Reds' pitching. Arbuckle deserves some credit. Again, I probably wouldn't even interview the guy, but I think he is being unfairly criticized. I also don't think his work compares with what the Reds have done, especially in the relevant pitching department of "what have you done for me lately."

Henry Clay
01-30-2006, 11:50 PM
and you miss my point. my point WAS, that just because the phillies have been better than the reds, doesnt mean that they have been good enough. if what the phillies have done is what you strive for, fine. its not what im looking for. and i dont want anyone from their screwd up organization

Let's just say I hope the Reds strive to compete. The Phillies have been in contention the past few years in a tough division. I'd enjoy seeing the Reds in contention again for a few years. The Phillies are not perfect role models by any stretch, but they built a solid team through their farm system and trades. Ed Wade, injuries, Bowa tantrums, and the new bandbox have done more to damage the Phillies than anything Arbuckle has done. Even with the obstacles, the team has posted winning records and been in division and wild card races. I'm beginning to have trouble remembering what a playoff race feels like. I'm sure one of my Philly friends will be glad to remind me. They have recent experience.

M2
01-31-2006, 12:49 AM
I don't think this is right. Do the Reds have a Gavin Floyd or Cole Hamels on the way?

Yes, Homer Bailey and Travis Wood. BTW, Floyd's wildly overrated (6.11 ERA in AAA and the majors) and Hamels has pitched a grand total of 117 innings in three seasons. It's not hard to be a Gavin Floyd or Cole Hamels. They're pyrite.


Do the Reds have a home-grown guy like Randy Wolf anchoring their rotation?

No, neither do the Phillies. Wolf unfortuntely hasn't been healthy for a number of years and hasn't posted an ERA under 4.00 since 2002. His K rate's dropped while his WHIP and HR/9 have risen. I like Wolf, but he hasn't paid dividends in a while. Have the Phillies had a pitcher win the ROY on Arbuckle's watch?


Rob Tejeda did far better in his 13 starts and mixed relief work than any Reds' promotion last year.

Yep, Tejada did some decent work.


I guess Brett Myers and Ryan Madson are worth mentioning, as well.

Which is why I mentioned them, but let's be real here. Myers has had one good season. Madson's been a middle reliever. I like both, wish the Reds had them, but neither wears an "S" on his chest.


Those pitchers are all currently on the Phillies, unlike the Reds' names cited above.

So what? Seriously. Who cares? If the Reds produced three pitchers in 13 years and the Phillies did the same, does it matter that the Phillies have been slightly more productive of late? Does that excuse all those years when Arbuckle was vomiting up guys like Loewer and Baisley? If you want to take a 13-year slice from both organizations, the guy who's had the most good pitching seasons from either club is Scott Sullivan.


I'm not a Phillies' fan, but I like the future of their pitching a lot better than the future of the Reds' pitching.

Talk about damning with faint praise. That said, if Wolf's not able to bounce back what is the future of the Phillies pitching? It's been a poor pitching team for years. You've got Myers, Madson and maybe Tejada. Floyd's a curveballer whose stuff was never electric as billed (check out his K rates). Hamels can't stay healthy for two straight months. And if Floyd and Hamels don't pan out, there's nothing else worth mentioning in that pipeline. So am I going to sit here and say for certain the Reds aren't better off with Harang, Claussen, Wagner and Coffey? No, I'm not. Neither picture is particularly rosy. Both teams need to find a pile of pitching talent if they want to be good in the latter part of this decade. IMO, it would be insanity to like the future of either of these staffs.

And Arbuckle deserves positive credit for that? Sorry. As for the Phillies having competed in recent years, I give a lot more credit to a $90+ million payroll for that than I do to the club's underproductive farm system.

SteelSD
01-31-2006, 12:53 AM
First of all I need to apologize to Steel. I rarely if ever admonish a poster. I sincerely apologize for lashing out at you. Having a rough day and I took it out on you. I truly hope you will forgive me for my words. M2 you and Steel have some great points. Keep in mind I was estatic to hear that the Reds were going to or had interviewed Arbuckle. He's not my first choice but compared to Maddox, Kullman and a few others on the list I'd take him.

No problem, TC. I was a bit concerned that you took my post wrong after reading your response being that I think we've always had enough rapport to banter back and forth about this and that.

Keep in mind that the way I read it you were using Roy Clark's words as support of Arbuckle. And I agree in principle that it IS easier to "hit" on a high draft pick than find that diamond-in-the-rough in the 12th round.

All I was trying to say is that if R. Clark's words were correct, then I haven't seen the evidence that Arbuckle has been the type of guy R. Clark was referring to. If you'd have paraded out a long list of Arbuckle's mid-to-late round success stories (or a good list of international signings), I would have had a completely different reaction.

Also note that I don't at all think that good scouts don't do a tough job well. Quite the contrary. Especially in today's age of information, it's difficult for a guy to go out there and spot someone who has real skills that might actually last past the first 250 picks because that means said scout is not only seeing something someone else may not notice, but that he's also beating the brush in nowheresville. I would think that takes a ton of mental toughness to know that other guys are watching a Josh Beckett for the umpteenth time in order to try to find a reason NOT to draft him while the other guy is in Podunk City, Canada hoping beyond hope that he sees something in the NEXT guy to take the hill that reminds him of Rich Harden.

I think Roy Clark is right in that regard. It IS more difficult to do the latter than the former. And, IMHO, that should be weighed when it comes time to evaluate Scouts. At the same time, I'm also of the opinion that it's a good idea to use similar criteria to evaluate the peformance of a Scouting Director. In this case, we're looking at a guy (Arbuckle), who's "hit" on a fairly low % of what should be his highest hit ratio selections and has missed on virtually everything else. Now, maybe he's just been passed bad information over the past twelve years or so. It's possible. Maybe he hasn't had the guys in place who are truly good at finding out that someone else's lump of coal is the Phillies' diamond. But that being said, a Scouting Director can only get away with being passed bad information and/or having sub-optimal staff for so long before it becomes HIS problem.

Hey, Arbuckle might be great at personally scouting players and finding real value with his own eyes. I don't have a list of his track record in that regard, so I'd have to concede that possibility. But then we'd also have to concede that a Scouting Director's job involves less of that and more of actually putting together a crew that can go out there and virtually BE that good themselves.


I'd like to see the Michael Hill's, Ricky Bennett's and a wild card like a Johnny Almaraz get a shot. Someone who has good credentials and could grow with the owner. I remember Billy Doran telling me that when he was Director of Player Development any time Almaraz said sign a guy they did it immediately. He was rarely if ever wrong. All other scouts recommendations were reviewed and possibly double checked.

Sorry, TC. But I'm of the opinion that the Reds need a GM who's already grown. Lacking that guy (and there is one guy out there), they need someone who doesn't need to grow very much at all. Michael Hill is intriguing. Bennett and Almaraz shouldn't even be in the picture, IMHO. I've faded on Krivsky. I don't necessarily think it's his fault that the Twins haven't seemed to be able to figure out how to switch gears since Lindner's fateful decision to hire O'Brien instead of him.

It's just that after Bowden, the rally cry was "draft and develop". That's fine if you can work a MLB roster like the dickens at the same time, but it's not a solution in and of itself. Chris Antonetti would be a great choice if he actually wanted to interview with anyone. Paul Depodesta (yeah, THAT guy) is still out there and he's proven himself on both the draft and MLB roster front.

Look, I'm all for "draft and develop", but that's not going to get the Reds anywhere if you have nary a clue what to do with a MLB player. It's why John Schuerholtz is has been so darned good. It's why Billy Beane's been so darned good. Both appear to have different systems to do the same ridiculously good job. Their crews draft well. They develop well. But most importantly, they are able to get that MLB team to where it needs to be every year with by any means necessary regardless of who's here, who's there, who's coming up, and who's not.

That's what I want to have in the GM spot for the Reds- "Mr. By Any Means Necessary". If the Reds come up with less, we might as well kiss off the next decade due to the next "five-year plan" that'll take 10 years to implement by a GM with a three-year contract.

M2
01-31-2006, 01:02 AM
That's what I want to have in the GM spot for the Reds- "Mr. By Any Means Necessary". If the Reds come up with less, we might as well kiss off the next decade due to the next "five-year plan" that'll take 10 years to implement by a GM with a three-year contract.

Beautifully stated.

SteelSD
01-31-2006, 01:44 AM
Beautifully stated.

Thanks, but I must say I'm disappointed that you gave up the Tejeda fight so quickly.

The guy is a high-OBP machine who happened to post a .270 BABIP (.251 per ESPN- dunno what that's about) and a HR rate that defies his actual propensity- 1.09 HR/9 IP career Minor Leagues, 1.74 HR/9 IP in 2004 (29 HR in 150.1 AA IP). Took him 6+ years to get to the Show.

The fact that the Phillies had to call up Robinson Tejeda in 2005 while hoping for a fluke season really illustrates the kind of dice rolls the Phillies needed to take.

The real irony is that the Phillies might just have garnered the three additional Wins that would have placed them in the playoffs had Tejeda's downright blowup in the pen not forced them to trade Placido Polanco for Ugeth Urbina; thereby leaving them with David Bell as the full-time 3B.

The irony on top of the irony is that the Phillies never really seemed to understand Scott Rolen's value and then dealt him for a package including Polanco and then never really understood his value.

Dumb team that hasn't made the playoffs because they did dumb things.

Jpup
01-31-2006, 10:48 AM
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/SPT05/601310317/1027



Marc Lancaster
Cincinnati Post
1/31/06

As the Reds prepare to get into the meat of the general manager selection process this week, one of the candidates offered up a philosophy that seemed to sum it all up.

"Each situation is unique in itself," said Mike Arbuckle, the most recent addition to the seven-deep list of interviewees. "So I don't think you try to fit yourself into situations - you present what you bring to the table and hopefully it fits what the club's looking for."

Arbuckle, the Philadelphia Phillies' assistant GM for scouting and player development, knows of what he speaks. He has interviewed for GM openings in Philadelphia twice and once each in Boston, Toronto and Pittsburgh - franchises on various levels of baseball's economic spectrum.

He said Monday that he believes some candidates set up well for certain openings. For instance, when he interviewed with the Blue Jays in the fall of 2001, he got the impression Toronto was looking for someone more in the Billy Beane mold. The Blue Jays got their man, hiring J.P. Ricciardi off Beane's staff in Oakland, and Arbuckle kept working to develop talent in Philadelphia.

Arbuckle, 55, is the oldest of the confirmed candidates for the Reds' job, and is highly regarded throughout the game. He said he has "no connection whatsoever" to the Reds or CEO Bob Castellini heading into the process, which makes him unique among those already slated to interview.

His time with Castellini will come later this week, probably Thursday. St. Louis Cardinals assistant GM John Mozeliak also will be in Cincinnati on Thursday. Minnesota Twins assistant GM Wayne Krivsky will arrive in town today and interview Wednesday.

Once they're on the hot seat, it will be up to each man to demonstrate his worth to Castellini. The first step in that process is self-evaluation, and Arbuckle, for one, believes he's walking into a good situation.

"I think a scouting and player development guy is a fit in that market," he said. "That's an area that obviously is my background and probably my strongest area. So I think what I bring to the table has a chance to be a fit.

"Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though. I just plan to come in and be as prepared as I can be and hopefully have an opportunity to lay out my philosophies and the way I would approach things."

In the end, that's all any of them can do.

traderumor
01-31-2006, 11:09 AM
"I think a scouting and player development guy is a fit in that market," he said. "That's an area that obviously is my background and probably my strongest area. So I think what I bring to the table has a chance to be a fit.Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Please, no more of these jokers, Bob.

NewEraReds
01-31-2006, 11:56 AM
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Please, no more of these jokers, Bob.
yea, this guy is a fool and the more i read about him or hear him talk, the worse he gets

Team Clark
01-31-2006, 05:17 PM
No problem, TC. I was a bit concerned that you took my post wrong after reading your response being that I think we've always had enough rapport to banter back and forth about this and that.

Keep in mind that the way I read it you were using Roy Clark's words as support of Arbuckle. And I agree in principle that it IS easier to "hit" on a high draft pick than find that diamond-in-the-rough in the 12th round.

All I was trying to say is that if R. Clark's words were correct, then I haven't seen the evidence that Arbuckle has been the type of guy R. Clark was referring to. If you'd have paraded out a long list of Arbuckle's mid-to-late round success stories (or a good list of international signings), I would have had a completely different reaction.

Also note that I don't at all think that good scouts don't do a tough job well. Quite the contrary. Especially in today's age of information, it's difficult for a guy to go out there and spot someone who has real skills that might actually last past the first 250 picks because that means said scout is not only seeing something someone else may not notice, but that he's also beating the brush in nowheresville. I would think that takes a ton of mental toughness to know that other guys are watching a Josh Beckett for the umpteenth time in order to try to find a reason NOT to draft him while the other guy is in Podunk City, Canada hoping beyond hope that he sees something in the NEXT guy to take the hill that reminds him of Rich Harden.

I think Roy Clark is right in that regard. It IS more difficult to do the latter than the former. And, IMHO, that should be weighed when it comes time to evaluate Scouts. At the same time, I'm also of the opinion that it's a good idea to use similar criteria to evaluate the peformance of a Scouting Director. In this case, we're looking at a guy (Arbuckle), who's "hit" on a fairly low % of what should be his highest hit ratio selections and has missed on virtually everything else. Now, maybe he's just been passed bad information over the past twelve years or so. It's possible. Maybe he hasn't had the guys in place who are truly good at finding out that someone else's lump of coal is the Phillies' diamond. But that being said, a Scouting Director can only get away with being passed bad information and/or having sub-optimal staff for so long before it becomes HIS problem.

Hey, Arbuckle might be great at personally scouting players and finding real value with his own eyes. I don't have a list of his track record in that regard, so I'd have to concede that possibility. But then we'd also have to concede that a Scouting Director's job involves less of that and more of actually putting together a crew that can go out there and virtually BE that good themselves.



Sorry, TC. But I'm of the opinion that the Reds need a GM who's already grown. Lacking that guy (and there is one guy out there), they need someone who doesn't need to grow very much at all. Michael Hill is intriguing. Bennett and Almaraz shouldn't even be in the picture, IMHO. I've faded on Krivsky. I don't necessarily think it's his fault that the Twins haven't seemed to be able to figure out how to switch gears since Lindner's fateful decision to hire O'Brien instead of him.

It's just that after Bowden, the rally cry was "draft and develop". That's fine if you can work a MLB roster like the dickens at the same time, but it's not a solution in and of itself. Chris Antonetti would be a great choice if he actually wanted to interview with anyone. Paul Depodesta (yeah, THAT guy) is still out there and he's proven himself on both the draft and MLB roster front.

Look, I'm all for "draft and develop", but that's not going to get the Reds anywhere if you have nary a clue what to do with a MLB player. It's why John Schuerholtz is has been so darned good. It's why Billy Beane's been so darned good. Both appear to have different systems to do the same ridiculously good job. Their crews draft well. They develop well. But most importantly, they are able to get that MLB team to where it needs to be every year with by any means necessary regardless of who's here, who's there, who's coming up, and who's not.

That's what I want to have in the GM spot for the Reds- "Mr. By Any Means Necessary". If the Reds come up with less, we might as well kiss off the next decade due to the next "five-year plan" that'll take 10 years to implement by a GM with a three-year contract.

Glad we found a way to agree to disagree and enjoy one another's posts. I have felt terrible about my harsh words towards you since yesterday. You bring a lot of merit to the table. Please know that both you and M2 bring your guns loaded to the table with facts and I TOTALLY respect that. Top tier posters. I agree with your assesment of the GM situation. In order to "win now" the Reds will need to lean heavily on front office personnel who have been there before. The current list falls short to some degree. Even my list does.

lollipopcurve
01-31-2006, 05:35 PM
That's what I want to have in the GM spot for the Reds- "Mr. By Any Means Necessary". If the Reds come up with less, we might as well kiss off the next decade due to the next "five-year plan" that'll take 10 years to implement by a GM with a three-year contract.

How does Castellini find such a person? Sounds like either Schuerholz, Beane or Santa Claus.

If it's me, I look for a guy with a good track record in a successful organization, cogent ideas about how to build and integrate scouting, player development and statistical evaluation departments, a 2-3 year plan for building a Reds major league roster that can win, and solid leadership ability.

SteelSD
01-31-2006, 06:05 PM
How does Castellini find such a person? Sounds like either Schuerholz, Beane or Santa Claus.

If it's me, I look for a guy with a good track record in a successful organization, cogent ideas about how to build and integrate scouting, player development and statistical evaluation departments, a 2-3 year plan for building a Reds major league roster that can win, and solid leadership ability.

Sounds like we're looking for the same things, lpc. Unfortunately, Antonetti doesn't seem to want an opportunity right now. Ditto Michael Hill. Depo's still out there and fits if he wanted the opportunity. He's THE guy. I'm sitting a little less on the fence with Mozeliak than I am Kullman and Krivsky (in order of preference).

Not much else to look at, particularly when a goodly portion of the Asst. GM crowd doesn't seem to want to interview for anything. Maybe they're waiting for the "dream job" to pop up. Dunno, but it is ironic that's Depo thought he was accepting the "dream job" only to find that he was wrestling with an animal he couldn't hope to tame.

M2
01-31-2006, 06:13 PM
Not much else to look at, particularly when a goodly portion of the Asst. GM crowd doesn't seem to want to interview for anything. Maybe they're waiting for the "dream job" to pop up.

It seems like there's a lot of folks waiting on that D.C. sale or on Hendry/Bavasi deathwatch.

Going to be a lot of folks smacking themselves when they lose out on that game of musical chairs.

Henry Clay
01-31-2006, 11:30 PM
Antonelli reportedly has "family commitments" that kept him from considering Boston or Cincinnati. As for the others, I imagine the nature of the opportunity offered may be a factor. I know for a fact that DePodesta never would have considered Cincinnati before the LA experience (we have a mutual friend), but I haven't gotten any skinny on whether he'd consider Cincinnati now. I haven't reached out to my friend to check because I haven't heard DePodesta's name mentioned as a candidate, except by Redzone folks. If folks want me to ask, I'll fire off an email tomorrow and report back tomorrow night.

Falls City Beer
01-31-2006, 11:42 PM
These candidate names indicate to me that Bob's not doing the hard sell on a lot of these guys--in other words, no offers these guys can't refuse. Sounds like he's going to "settle" for someone. I hope I'm wrong.

SteelSD
02-01-2006, 12:10 AM
Antonelli reportedly has "family commitments" that kept him from considering Boston or Cincinnati. As for the others, I imagine the nature of the opportunity offered may be a factor. I know for a fact that DePodesta never would have considered Cincinnati before the LA experience (we have a mutual friend), but I haven't gotten any skinny on whether he'd consider Cincinnati now. I haven't reached out to my friend to check because I haven't heard DePodesta's name mentioned as a candidate, except by Redzone folks. If folks want me to ask, I'll fire off an email tomorrow and report back tomorrow night.

Feel free to do so. I'd think that if DePo is at all looking to get back in the game, Cinci would be a fine enough place to land. Fired-up owner looking to make good in smaller market city. Willing to take short-term hit to better the team. Solid offensive club in a litte-used ballpark just needs able GM to find some solid pitching. Fan base wants a winner but will be happy with tangible signs of improvement while getting there. If I were a guy looking to become a General Manager, I can definitely think of places far far less palatable than Cincinnati.

BTW, what "family committments" would be so great that Antonetti would turn down an interview for an in-state baseball club? Not saying you got bad info, just that the excuse is about as lame as it gets. If it gets any more severe, we'll next hear about how the Asst. GM in Baltimore is turning down an opportunity to interview for the Washington GM position after next season because it's too far to drive.

Henry Clay
02-01-2006, 12:50 AM
Feel free to do so. I'd think that if DePo is at all looking to get back in the game, Cinci would be a fine enough place to land.

I agree 100%. I will write to my friend tomorrow and see if he and DePodesta are still in regular email contact. I think they grew up together.


BTW, what "family committments" would be so great that Antonetti would turn down an interview for an in-state baseball club? Not saying you got bad info, just that the excuse is about as lame as it gets. If it gets any more severe, we'll next hear about how the Asst. GM in Baltimore is turning down an opportunity to interview for the Washington GM position after next season because it's too far to drive.

The "family commitments" justification made little sense to me, too, when I saw it. Cleveland and Cincinnati are pretty close geographically. The cities aren't so different that a person would reject one over the other. I don't know the guy's family commitments, so I'll just say I don't understand.

I've been looking for the article that set forth that justification and just found it -- Saturday's Enquirer article on Mozeliak:


Mark Antonetti, the 30-year-old rising star and assistant GM in Cleveland, pulled out of the running for the job.

The Reds were interested in him, but Antonetti declined to be interviewed because of family commitments.

[On an unrelated note, I think this post qualifies me finally to post on the ORG board. Pretty exciting day!]

cincinnati chili
02-01-2006, 01:41 AM
BTW, what "family committments" would be so great that Antonetti would turn down an interview for an in-state baseball club? Not saying you got bad info, just that the excuse is about as lame as it gets. If it gets any more severe, we'll next hear about how the Asst. GM in Baltimore is turning down an opportunity to interview for the Washington GM position after next season because it's too far to drive.

You're probably right. He probably just got the heebies from the Reds and the Red Sox (Lucchino).

But the family thing could be legit. In 2003, he married a woman with a pretty serious career. Sarah Antonetti (maiden name Nottingham) has a high position in the noted Cleveland-based design firm of Nottingham-Spirk. I don't know for a fact that her relatives started the business, but it would be a heck of a coincidence if that were not the case.

It could be that she doesn't want to leave Cleveland and the family business, period. It could be that she's pregnant or something. It could be (actually, it's probably likely) that she makes more money than he does.

It could be a number of things.

Hopefully, it's not because he thinks the Reds are a total joke.

SteelSD
02-01-2006, 02:18 AM
You're probably right. He probably just got the heebies from the Reds and the Red Sox (Lucchino).

But the family thing could be legit. In 2003, he married a woman with a pretty serious career. Sarah Antonetti (maiden name Nottingham) has a high position in the noted Cleveland-based design firm of Nottingham-Spirk. I don't know for a fact that her relatives started the business, but it would be a heck of a coincidence if that were not the case.

It could be that she doesn't want to leave Cleveland and the family business, period. It could be that she's pregnant or something. It could be (actually, it's probably likely) that she makes more money than he does.

It could be a number of things.

Hopefully, it's not because he thinks the Reds are a total joke.

That's exceptional information for sure. It's always difficult for one partner to make a decision that might impact the other when there are careers on the line because the one with the opportunity in front of them has to weigh opportunity versus stability. In fact, I've turned down a similar opportunity because it would have impacted my wife's career. It was, IMO, a low-grade opportunity to grab money while sacrificing stability. But it was an opportunity to move up in salary.

That being said, Antonetti didn't turn down a job with the Reds. He turned down the opportunity to interview for a job with the Reds. That's puzzling to me unless he's received assurances that Mark Shapiro is going to be moving on sometime in the next two years and that Antonetti is an absolute to take over. Either that, or Antonetti has clear knowledge that he wouldn't have received the Cinci job and feels that a rejection would be a black mark on his record.

I've been in a situation of living apart from my wife during the week in order to take on an opportunity, I think I've got a pretty decent perspective on the concept. And yes, I actually have lived apart from my wife because a solid opportunity arose. Cinci isn't so far away that the guy couldn't drive back (or fly) on a whim to deal with whatever. On first glance, it appears that Antonetti thinks he's a certainty to take over in Cleveland sometime soon when Shapiro gets a huge payday from someone else or he's just completely turned off by the offers to interview for positions in both a cash-rich locale (Boston) and with an in-state team (Cinci) that's got a number of resources for him to work with.

But not knowing the circumstances, I'd also consider that Antonetti is a guy who wants a team to come in with the assurance that he's going to be offered the job regardless of how the rest of the "interviews" play out. In short, maybe he's got a "job offer or forget it" mindset. If that's the case, I don't necessarily fault him for that but it's a risky play because in baseball, this season's hot commodity may be next year's don't want to touch.

Personally, I don't care whether or not Antonetti's reluctance to interview is caused by hope, hubris, or whatever. But from an outsider's perspective, he's got an opportunity with the Reds that isn't exactly throttled by a goodly number of more qualified candidates and it's relatively close to home as even you or I would describe "close to home". And it's with a ballclub that has a serious strength in one area that can be used to acquire a serious strength in an area of need.

The only other thing I can possibly think of that has Antonetti turning down interviews is that he doesn't feel he's ready for that next step. And I have no problem at all with that kind of introspection but then he needs to tell his boss (Shapiro) to stop giving teams permission to speak with him.

lollipopcurve
02-01-2006, 09:59 AM
it's a risky play because in baseball, this season's hot commodity may be next year's don't want to touch.

Agreed. He's only going to get so many opportunities. At this point, after turning down 3 chances to interview, I wouldn't be surprised if teams stop asking. I know if I was looking to hire, I'd question whether the guy really wanted to be a GM. Even without being seriously interested in Boston, AZ or Cincy, he could have learned something by going through the process. He's a smart guy, yet he has chosen ignorance over information. You have to wonder.

Chip R
02-01-2006, 10:58 AM
That being said, Antonetti didn't turn down a job with the Reds. He turned down the opportunity to interview for a job with the Reds. That's puzzling to me unless he's received assurances that Mark Shapiro is going to be moving on sometime in the next two years and that Antonetti is an absolute to take over. Either that, or Antonetti has clear knowledge that he wouldn't have received the Cinci job and feels that a rejection would be a black mark on his record.


Perhaps he feels that if he were hired and things weren't turned around here within year 2 he'd be facing the same fate as DanO. Now we all know DanO is a tool but his former brethern may feel that he got the shaft and don't think the big club can't be turned around in time to placate the powers that be and it will take too much time to rebuild the minor leagues. As for turning down BOS, I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't want to get involved in that circus there. Plus I hear there's bad blood between CLE and BOS now over the Crisp trade.

Now I don't know what kind of a schedule a GM has - great question to ask Kullman - but I'm sure it isn't a 9-5 gig, especially during the regular season. Even if you live next door to the ballpark, you're not going to see the wife as often as you like and there are times, especially during July and August, where you may not see her much at all. And it isn't like CLE is way far away either. But you never know what makes someone do things. Ned Colletti stayed as Asst. GM under Sabean for quite a few years. I don't know how many times he interviewed for other gigs but if he were actively seeking other jobs, he probably would have had one before L.A. hired him.

SteelSD
02-01-2006, 02:10 PM
Agreed. He's only going to get so many opportunities. At this point, after turning down 3 chances to interview, I wouldn't be surprised if teams stop asking. I know if I was looking to hire, I'd question whether the guy really wanted to be a GM. Even without being seriously interested in Boston, AZ or Cincy, he could have learned something by going through the process. He's a smart guy, yet he has chosen ignorance over information. You have to wonder.

Yep. Great point. And I don't fault the guy if he doesn't want to become a General Manager at this point in his life. Maybe that's just not what he wants for whatever reason. No biggie. It's his call. It's just puzzling to me that he's turning down interviews rather than actual job offers.

Team Clark
02-01-2006, 02:17 PM
Agreed. He's only going to get so many opportunities. At this point, after turning down 3 chances to interview, I wouldn't be surprised if teams stop asking. I know if I was looking to hire, I'd question whether the guy really wanted to be a GM. Even without being seriously interested in Boston, AZ or Cincy, he could have learned something by going through the process. He's a smart guy, yet he has chosen ignorance over information. You have to wonder.


Not to mention Owners and GM's call other Owners and GM's to see how previous interviews were structured. The Wilpon's did that with Minaya.

lollipopcurve
02-01-2006, 02:19 PM
And I don't fault the guy if he doesn't want to become a General Manager at this point in his life.

Absolutely not. In fact, seems like a good call if the info about his wife is as chili describes. Still, if he thinks he might want to become a GM some day, I'd think it would serve him well to go through the process now, at least once anyway. I doubt people would hold it against him if he turned down an offer, citing family issues.

SteelSD
02-01-2006, 04:35 PM
Absolutely not. In fact, seems like a good call if the info about his wife is as chili describes. Still, if he thinks he might want to become a GM some day, I'd think it would serve him well to go through the process now, at least once anyway. I doubt people would hold it against him if he turned down an offer, citing family issues.

Agreed. The only reason I can Fox Mulder into that might hold him back from accepting even an interview is that he doesn't want another team to learn any specifics about how they're doing things in Cleveland. But I'd think that he could speak in generalities to avoid potential disclosure of proprietary information and as Shapiro keeps giving folks permission to speak with him, it wouldn't seem that is a real organizational concern from Cleveland's perspective.

But hey, if he's in his comfy place, then more power to him. I certainly can't indict the man for being happy with where he is right now.

Jpup
02-02-2006, 04:09 PM
per ESPN.com

SAN DIEGO -- Former Philadelphia Phillies general manager Ed Wade was hired as a scout by the San Diego Padres on Wednesday.

Wade was fired by the Phillies on Oct. 10 after failing to get them to the playoffs in eight seasons as GM. He will scout the Double-A Eastern League and Triple-A International League for San Diego.

The Padres also promoted Josh Stein to coordinator of baseball research and advance scouting. He had worked in various capacities in the scouting and player development departments.
__________________

CincyRedsFan30
02-03-2006, 02:06 AM
REDS NOTES

All-Star Lopez settles for $2.7M

By Hal McCoy

Dayton Daily News

CINCINNATI | Felipe Lopez and the Cincinnati Reds will not do battle in a hotel suite.

Lopez and the Reds avoided an arbitration hearing Thursday when they agreed to a one-year $2.7 million contract for the 25-year-old All-Star shortstop.

Lopez had been seeking a raise to $3 million, and the team was offering $2.15 million. He made $415,000 last year when he hit .291 with 23 homers, 85 RBIs and 15 stolen bases.

The hearing for Adam Dunn remains set for Feb. 17, with Dunn seeking $8.95 million and the team offering $7.1 million.

The parties could still reach a compromise.

Dunn made $4.6 million last season, when he hit .247 with 40 HRs and 101 RBIs.


Update on GM search

On the general manager front, two candidates were interviewed Thursday — Philadelphia's Mike Arbuckle and St. Louis' John Mozeliak. Minnesota's Wayne Krivsky interviewed Wednesday.

Jim Beattie and Leland Maddox, members of the Reds front office are expected to interview today.

It is expected the first round of interviews will be completed this week, with two or three candidates invited back for a second round next week. It is believed the Reds want a GM in place by the end of next week.

KronoRed
02-03-2006, 08:45 AM
It is believed the Reds want a GM in place by the end of next week.[/B]
So no new candidates are probably forthcoming.

DoogMinAmo
02-04-2006, 12:35 PM
So no new candidates are probably forthcoming.

True, but it does not mean that no prospects were secretly interviewed previously. 9 candidates in 10 days seems rather suspicious, especially when some had doubled up. Either way, I expect new names, and much more to be revealed about the process ( read: how heavily traditional scouting and sabermetrics are weighed) when this second round materializes.

Has anyone heard a direct quote regarding end of next week from Castellini? With what little we know about Castellini, if he were to pinpoint a date, it seems he would commit to it. However, maybe that is why it is only "believed" and not stated.

westofyou
02-04-2006, 12:46 PM
INTERNAL CANDIDATES (4)


Johnny Almaraz: Reds director of international scouting/player development; interviewed Tuesday

Jim Beattie: Reds special adviser; interviewed Friday

Brad Kullman: Reds interim GM/ director of major-league operations; interviewed Tuesday

Leland Maddox: Reds special assistant to the GM/professional scout; will interview Monday

EXTERNAL CANDIDATES (5)


Mike Arbuckle: Phillies assistant GM/scouting and player development; interviewed Thursday

Wayne Krivsky: Twins assistant GM; interviewed Wednesday

John Mozeliak: Cardinals assistant GM; interviewed Thursday

David Wilder: White Sox director of player development; interviewed Wednesday

Frank Wren: Braves vice president/assistant GM; will interview Monday

nyjwagner
02-05-2006, 12:15 AM
The Reds front office wants it announced next Friday, but they are going to commit to that in the press until its done.

Arbuckle cannot be blamed for the lack of talent developed, all he can do is sign the guys and its a good list hes got. He's the strongest candidate, IMO

SteelSD
02-05-2006, 01:02 AM
The Reds front office wants it announced next Friday, but they are going to commit to that in the press until its done.

Arbuckle cannot be blamed for the lack of talent developed, all he can do is sign the guys and its a good list hes got. He's the strongest candidate, IMO

Exactly what is it you think a Director of Scouting and Player Development is responsible for?

This is why it takes so FREAKING LONG to get bad people out of the game...

GM isn't responsible for the draft picks because it's his Director of Scouting who tells him who to pick.

Director of Scouting isn't responsible for draft picks not working out because he's just going on what the scouts tell him and relies on what the development folks do.

Director of Player Development isn't responsible for not developing talent because someone screwed up the draft picks.

Reminds me of an old Judge Reinhold film- "Head Office":

"I don't MAKE the decisions. I just approve the decisions and those decisions are made by someone else. NO, I'm not responsible for that. You're not listening to me. I DON'T MAKE the decisions. I just APPROVE the decisions that someone else makes.".

Or something to that effect...

BCubb2003
02-05-2006, 01:19 AM
Good point, Steel. Then they can blame injuries, or they weren't given enough years to turn the system around. I'd like to see a rating system for GMs, maybe broken down by drafting, developing, trading and signing. Or maybe a staff should be rated together...

Team Clark
02-05-2006, 01:30 AM
Rating a Scouting Director is a lot like rating Top Poker players. It's the luck of the draw.

SteelSD
02-05-2006, 02:01 AM
Good point, Steel. Then they can blame injuries, or they weren't given enough years to turn the system around. I'd like to see a rating system for GMs, maybe broken down by drafting, developing, trading and signing. Or maybe a staff should be rated together...

BCubb, if I were an owner I'd want a rating on every member of my organization from GM-down all the way to scouts beating the brush in nowhereland.

I'd also compartmentalize my scouting efforts. If I'm having guys watching HS and young international players, I want the very best "tools" scouts I have doing that (and you're darn tootin' that I'd give them a SIXTH tool to think about). AND I want consistent cross-checks between tools and statistics when appropriate.

I'd also rate those Scouts on sliding scales based on degree of difficulty and expected ROI for the picks they're suggesting. I'd be finding baselines on the ROI for picks throughout MLB history and break them down by potential risk/reward and difficulty. For example, it might be easier to scout at the college level (an assumption mind you) and that's something I want to find out before grading anyone based on the scouting returns. If I have guys going out to the middle of nowhere to try to find a low-risk/high-reward type to select in the middle to late rounds, they get breaks on their grades because they're being set up to find little.

For example, I'd have a minimum of six Scout types:

1. National Scouts assigned to cover top-rated HS prospects.
2. Regional Scouts assigned to beat the prep talent brush.
3. National Scouts assigned to cover top-rated College talent.
4. Regional Scouts assigned to cover small-College talent.
5. International Scouts assigned to cover each International Professional region.
6. International Scouts assigned to cover each International Amateur region.

I'd also want to enlist local talent "spotters" to clue the team in to small-school HS, small-school College, and small-town International talent. Beyond that I want in-office statistical "spotters" to beat the spreadsheet brush in order to find guys that other teams don't notice. This is the primary support group for the groups. Even though HS players may not have stats that translate well, I still want someone looking at the reports (if available) for small prep districts just to see if there's a guy out there who's so ridiculously outdoing the competition that it would be stupid not to go see him.

Then, at the National level, I'd spend the money to "flip" Scouts to cross-check prospect reports I receive from other Scouts. An example would be that I'm getting rave reviews about a kid's "Tools" (either HS or college). If I'm getting those kind of reviews, I want another unbiased looksee from someone who doesn't have delusions of "the next Tom Seaver" floating in his head.

Obviously, among the Scout types I listed above, the jobs are more difficult at the lower levels of the spectrum and the ROI at the top levels is crucial. If you're going to be scouting big-time college talent for me, you'd better have a real understanding of statistical analysis and if I see a scouting report that simply talks about a kid's tools without mentioning how those translate into performance, I'm going to eventually figure out that you don't belong there. Ditto for guys scouting the top HS ranks who keep telling me to draft real hard throwers but nary a pitcher.

The guys at the lower levels are going to get their chances to move up. All they have to do is find a number of guys above the acceptable norm who are worth drafting because they become a viable resource for the organization (either through play or via trade). I don't expect them to find a ton of diamonds when there's coal aplenty, but those who consistently produce more when given the toughest jobs are the same guys who'll produce more when given easier jobs.

And all along the way, I'm going to be monitoring the results and I'll be able to grade their bosses because it's pretty easy to know when someone doesn't have the right people in the right places.

But, y'know, I really don't think anything I've typed is revolutionary. I think those things are something that successful organizations already do. Gee, I wish I could count the Reds as one of them. ;)

BCubb2003
02-05-2006, 03:33 AM
That's what I'm talking about. Now turn it into "win shares" for O'Brien vs. Krivsky vs. Kullman...

RFS62
02-05-2006, 08:43 AM
The "old boy" network among scouts and longtime baseball men is so deep and intertwned, it would be tough to get a fair rating system in place. Fear of burning bridges and poisoning the water for future job opportunities would be huge.

In a perfect world, such rating systems would be obvious and appropriate. In the real world that exists today, it's tougher to break down institutional relationships that have been part and parcel of the game for many years.