PDA

View Full Version : First Round of interviews is over



flyer85
02-07-2006, 04:17 PM
Nine candidates.

according to the Enquirer if there is consensus the Reds could hire without another go round of interviews.

Here's to hoping they pick the right guy. I don't have enough info to know who that might be but I can remain positive.


Reds interview two more
BY KEVIN KELLY | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

The Reds met Monday with two more candidates for the general manager's job.

Braves assistant GM Frank Wren and Reds special assistant to the GM Leland Maddox were the last of nine confirmed candidates to interview since the process began one week ago.

Team officials now are expected to decide if there is a consensus favorite or a need to conduct a second round of interviews with a group of finalists.

The seven other confirmed candidates are Reds director of international scouting and player development Johnny Almaraz, Phillies assistant GM Mike Arbuckle, Reds special adviser Jim Beattie, Twins assistant GM Wayne Krivsky, Reds interim GM Brad Kullman, Cardinals assistant GM John Mozeliak and White Sox director of player development David Wilder.

Puffy
02-07-2006, 04:39 PM
I am firmly on the Mozeliak bandwagon - I'd rather have Jennings or Hill from the Marlins, but Mozeliak has my support since neither of them wanted to interview (or in Jennings case if the Reds chose not to interview him, cause we don't know)

flyer85
02-07-2006, 04:48 PM
I am firmly on the Mozeliak bandwagonHonestly, I don't know enough about the situation. The one thing that doesn't necessarily come through in a subordinate role(which is most of the interviewees) is developing the managerial, leadership and organizational skills needed to be successful as a major league GM. Shows how clueless the last regime was because over time it became obvious to everyone that DanO possessed none of the above yet was given the GM job by Uncle Carl.

Puffy
02-07-2006, 05:35 PM
Honestly, I don't know enough about the situation. The one thing that doesn't necessarily come through in a subordinate role(which is most of the interviewees) is developing the managerial, leadership and organizational skills needed to be successful as a major league GM. Shows how clueless the last regime was because over time it became obvious to everyone that DanO possessed none of the above yet was given the GM job by Uncle Carl.

Hey - I hear ya :thumbup:

I just like everything I've read about him (albeit, only two articles), but I like what he has done with the Cards and I like that Jocketty is very high on him. Not to mention he learned under Jocketty, and that is a plus.

IslandRed
02-07-2006, 05:46 PM
Know what you guys mean. No matter how impressive a guy has been as an assistant whatever, if he hasn't been a good GM before, there's always the possibility he won't be up to the job. Unfortunately, there's no by-the-book method of identifying who the good GMs are going to be. So I'm just crossing my fingers, and hoping that -- unlike last time -- exceptional past performance in whatever role carries the day over interview skills.

princeton
02-07-2006, 06:03 PM
I'm just crossing my fingers, and hoping that -- unlike last time -- exceptional past performance in whatever role carries the day over interview skills.

unlike last time?

hohoho.

Doc. Scott
02-07-2006, 06:05 PM
unlike last time?

hohoho.

Who are you pulling for? Who do you think will get the job?

KronoRed
02-07-2006, 06:20 PM
At this point I'm pulling against others instead of for someone.

westofyou
02-07-2006, 06:25 PM
unlike last time?

hohoho."History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again."

Kurt Vonnegut

Chip R
02-07-2006, 07:12 PM
So I'm just crossing my fingers, and hoping that -- unlike last time -- exceptional past performance in whatever role carries the day over interview skills.

That's what I can't figure out. DanO's interview skills? Every time I listened to him talk for more than 5 minutes made me want to put a bullet through my brain. I'm sure I am not alone in feeling that way. Of course the guy who hired him is no ball of fire either.

IslandRed
02-07-2006, 07:33 PM
That's what I can't figure out. DanO's interview skills? Every time I listened to him talk for more than 5 minutes made me want to put a bullet through my brain. I'm sure I am not alone in feeling that way. Of course the guy who hired him is no ball of fire either.

But of course. Lindner's a conservative businessman, Allen's a beancounter by profession. They never seemed to get what's unique about the business, much less get to the point where they knew a good baseball guy from a bad one. A candidate who showed up meticulously prepared (the infamous binders) and using the latest corporate obfuscation-speak probably did impress them. Not to mention O'Brien appeared to be the anti-Bowden in the very areas where Bowden had most displeased them -- unprofessional reputation, complaining about payroll, etc. Alas, he was not the anti-Bowden when it came to identifying good pitchers.

Sabo Fan
02-07-2006, 09:01 PM
I've been undecided during this whole process. I wanted DePodesta to get an interview in the worst way, but that isn't going to happen now.

As far as who's left, I'm leaning more and more towards Kullman. I keep seeing his name pop up when questions are asked about who the next GM should be. The last two BP chats both had questions about the Reds GM (ok, so maybe I submitted one of them), and both responses said Kullman should get the job. The more people I see mention his name, the more I lean that way. Joe Sheehan brought up a good point that Kullman seems to grasp the concept that you need a combination of both the skills philosophy and the stats philosophy to be successful.

Toss in the fact that he's a Miami grad, and he's got my vote.

WVRedsFan
02-08-2006, 02:31 AM
I will not be suicidal if Brad Kullman becomes GM. In fact, i think he has promise, I do not believe, however, that he is the man to rebuild this club. It will take some experience and some reputation to do that and Kullman doesn't have either IMHO.

My hope is that a more experienced, respected individual takes the reigns and, not knowing what BCast will do, I think that will be the case. I want Wayne K., but we can live with anyone on the list (with certain exceptions) because we have seen the fiery Hell that Dan O'Brien was and we can be sure that we will not pass that way again under this administration. Amen. (I hope).

princeton
02-08-2006, 10:21 AM
Who are you pulling for?

someone who will strive to put the Reds five years ahead of everyone else, not just bring them into the 21st century.

and a clean house, too.

Chip R
02-08-2006, 10:25 AM
someone who will strive to put the Reds five years ahead of everyone else, not just bring them into the 21st century.

and a clean house, too.

So who would that be besides yourself? ;)

princeton
02-08-2006, 10:45 AM
So who would that be besides yourself? ;)

dunno-- I wasn't asked to sit in. Go figure. I can imagine the responses though: copy this, copy that, copy the other thing.

what I would really seek is a guy that

1. helped to discover and operate the newest mousetrap,
2. is looking everywhere for an even better mousetrap.
3. is heartless enough to put the old cats to sleep

flyer85
02-08-2006, 11:25 AM
what I would really seek is a guy that

1. helped to discover and operate the newest mousetrap,
2. is looking everywhere for an even better mousetrap.
3. is heartless enough to put the old cats to sleepThat's what the Reds need, an animal hater!

I hope they gave the prospective GMs the Schottzie test. See if they could walk by a dog without kicking it. :thumbup:

Doc. Scott
02-08-2006, 11:29 AM
someone who will strive to put the Reds five years ahead of everyone else, not just bring them into the 21st century.

and a clean house, too.

Who among the contenders would have the ability to do this?

princeton
02-08-2006, 12:42 PM
Who among the contenders would have the ability to do this?

you or I would know this how?

Jpup
02-08-2006, 12:50 PM
you or I would know this how?

track record?

Doc. Scott
02-08-2006, 01:17 PM
track record?

I would argue that nobody in the entire field has an established track record of success as an actual general manager. Successful organizations, yes (Mozeliak, Wren, Krivsky); experience, yes (Beattie). But no matter how you slice it, Mr. Castellini pretty much has to go on potential if he doesn't go for Jim, the known quantity. Sure, Wayne Krivsky has had a long and successful career. But he's also spent it at the side of Terry Ryan, who would probably make any assistant look good (same for Frank Wren and John Schuerholz).

But is Beattie really a known quantity? Is the performance of the late-nineties, cash-starved Expos and the Angelos-meddled Orioles a good indicator for a guy who has both major-league playing experience and an Ivy League pedigree? Do you ignore the PD Director stint in Seattle that helped lead to the late-'90s Mariners' success? (Maybe you do; it's not like picking Alex Rodriguez out of a crowd would have been that tough.)

Beattie's selection will be disparaged by RedsZone because he's not viewed as being dynamic or Moneyball-friendly. But who's to say that the other candidates really would be any better? Nobody else has a long enough track record in the GM's seat to show anything. And going on "potential" for someone like Mozeliak or Kullman is highly unpredictable in its own right.

That's the frustrating thing about this- you can't "forecast" GMs the way you can players.

flyer85
02-08-2006, 01:34 PM
The job of a GM is to do a better job of acquiring the resources needed to win than your competition. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that when you aren't shackled by capital limitations(like the Reds). The moneyball way was to use statistical analysis to attempt to identify resources that were being undervalued by the market and then to exploit it.

For the Reds to be successful the GM will have to have the ability to identify undervalued resources and then exploit the situation to his advantage. The ability to identify those undervalued resources is the key for a small market franchise because they don't have unlimited capital to acquire the resources necessary to build a winner. Instead the Reds have severly limited capital in comparison to others to accomplish the task of winning.

Who should the GM be? I don't know. However, I think in another thread Princeton came the close with his mousetrap and cats analogy. For someone to be successful as the Reds GM there will have to be a considerable amount of thinking outside the box to find new ways to identify undervalued resources. If you do it the same way as everyone else you will come up behind because almost everyone else has more capital to acquire resources.


Couple of other points
1) No way for a small market club to compete without developing their own players
2) The GM must be creative and be willing to use all player acquisition methods at his disposal
3) The GM must be willing to stay out of the market for overpriced resources.

Falls City Beer
02-08-2006, 02:21 PM
I would argue that nobody in the entire field has an established track record of success as an actual general manager. Successful organizations, yes (Mozeliak, Wren, Krivsky); experience, yes (Beattie). But no matter how you slice it, Mr. Castellini pretty much has to go on potential if he doesn't go for Jim, the known quantity. Sure, Wayne Krivsky has had a long and successful career. But he's also spent it at the side of Terry Ryan, who would probably make any assistant look good (same for Frank Wren and John Schuerholz).

But is Beattie really a known quantity? Is the performance of the late-nineties, cash-starved Expos and the Angelos-meddled Orioles a good indicator for a guy who has both major-league playing experience and an Ivy League pedigree? Do you ignore the PD Director stint in Seattle that helped lead to the late-'90s Mariners' success? (Maybe you do; it's not like picking Alex Rodriguez out of a crowd would have been that tough.)

Beattie's selection will be disparaged by RedsZone because he's not viewed as being dynamic or Moneyball-friendly. But who's to say that the other candidates really would be any better? Nobody else has a long enough track record in the GM's seat to show anything. And going on "potential" for someone like Mozeliak or Kullman is highly unpredictable in its own right.

That's the frustrating thing about this- you can't "forecast" GMs the way you can players.

So your argument is: go with Beattie because we (meaning: we at Redszone) don't know very much about the other candidates?

That's a tad screwy.

Yeah, we do know Beattie's track record, and frankly, it blows.

Doc. Scott
02-08-2006, 03:53 PM
So your argument is: go with Beattie because we (meaning: we at Redszone) don't know very much about the other candidates?

That's a tad screwy.

Yeah, we do know Beattie's track record, and frankly, it blows.

No, I didn't intend that. I was just downplaying Beattie's lack of results because the situation's been bizarre at both of his major stops. I wasn't rooting for him to be hired, just attempting to lament the uncertainty of it.