PDA

View Full Version : Columnist: Krivsky shut Jocketty out of high-level talks



Mainspark
04-25-2008, 04:11 PM
From Tracy Ringolsby's weekly column....

The most shocking news in Wayne Krivsky being fired and Walt Jocketty hired as Cincinnati Reds general manager was Krivsky’s claim he was shocked.
“I did not see this coming at all,” he was quoted as saying.
Really?
The most stable thing about the Reds is their instability. Since 2003, the Reds have had two owners, four GMs and five managers, including one interim.
Jocketty developed a close relationship with Reds owner/ CEO Bob Castellini when Castellini was a minority owner of the St. Louis Cardinals, where Jocketty was GM until last fall.
When Castellini first bought the Reds, the speculation was he would try to hire Jocketty from the Cardinals, although he eventually decided to hire Krivsky. Castellini did, however, bring in Jocketty as his personal adviser this offseason after Jocketty was let go by the Cardinals last fall, only a year removed from their World Series victory.
Krivsky was not receptive to the hiring of Jocketty, and the word was that instead of trying to integrate Jocketty into the decision-making process, Krivsky shut Jocketty out of high-level talks, which Castellini took as a personal affront because Jocketty was his handpicked representative.
With the Reds struggling at the start of the season, again, Castellini decided to make a move.
Jocketty welcomes the job. Yes, manager Dusty Baker is a larger-than-life figure, but that has never been a problem for Jocketty, who began his big-league career working for the late Charlie Finley and in St. Louis never seemed to have any issues being overshadowed by manager Tony La Russa. In fact, the Jocketty-La Russa relationship was so strong, there was speculation the manager might not return to St. Louis after Jocketty was fired.
The irony for Jocketty is that he gets a second chance to be a GM because of his strong relationship with the team’s owner, which was a burr under the saddle of the man he is replacing.
Given his preference, Jocketty’s arrival in Cincinnati would have been welcomed by Krivsky and the two could have worked together.
In fact, Jocketty initially balked at joining the Reds as an adviser to Castellini because he wanted to avoid creating a situation similar to the one that was his shortcoming in St. Louis, where ownership brought in computer whiz Jeff Luhnow, put him in charge of scouting and player development and had him reporting directly to ownership, not Jocketty.

pedro
04-25-2008, 04:25 PM
If true, that would have been an extremely dumb move by Krivsky IMO and one that most people would understand would doom them in their current job.

Benihana
04-25-2008, 04:26 PM
This is in line with what I have heard.

OnBaseMachine
04-25-2008, 04:26 PM
I stopped reading after Tracy Ringolsby.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2008, 04:29 PM
Honestly, how could Krivsky not have seen the hiring of Walt Jocketty as the beginning of the doomsday countdown?

Cyclone792
04-25-2008, 04:30 PM
If true, that would have been an extremely dumb move by Krivsky IMO and one that most people would understand would doom them in their current job.

Yup, I'm with you there.

It's difficult at best to know if this is true, but the irony here is it's the same theme we heard when Almaraz was run out of town. Almaraz's biggest gripe, at least the biggest he stated to the media, was that Krivsky shut him out of high level talks.

One thing is for sure: if this did take place, then it takes the "weirdness" of the timing out of the equation. Because if this is true, then it's plausible that Castellini acted not long after he got wind of what was going on.

Stormy
04-25-2008, 04:33 PM
Honestly, how could Krivsky not have seen the hiring of Walt Jocketty as the beginning of the doomsday countdown?


I could care less if Krivsky saw it coming. And I could care less if Krivsky took his 'vulture-in-waiting' into his inner circle. The only relevant question is 'was it meritorious' to fire Krivsky barely two years after taking over perhaps the most dysfunctional franchise in the NL? Of course, given Krivsky's vast improvement of the talent base throughout the organization, the answer is a resounding 'no.' If Bob Castellini wants to observe an unintelligible buffoon in terms of organizational design, and public relations, he need look no further than the mirror each morning.

pedro
04-25-2008, 04:38 PM
I could care less if Krivsky saw it coming. And I could care less if Krivsky took his 'vulture-in-waiting' into his inner circle. The only relevant question is 'was it meritorious' to fire Krivsky barely two years after taking over perhaps the most dysfunctional franchise in the NL? Of course, given Krivsky's vast improvement of the talent base throughout the organization, the answer is a resounding 'no.' If Bob Castellini wants to observe an unintelligible buffoon in terms of organizational design, and public relations, he need look no further than the mirror each morning.

Regardless, anyone who has worked in the business world and has had to deal with "outside management consultants" brought in by higher ups knows that if they deny access to those "outside management consultants" they'll likely loose their job.

pedro
04-25-2008, 04:44 PM
I also don't think it's very fair to call Jocketty a "vulture in waiting", even if I think Wayne did a pretty good job. I'm going to give Walt the benefit of the doubt as I don't have any reason to believe he was actively angling for Wayne's job.

oneupper
04-25-2008, 04:45 PM
Regardless, anyone who has worked in the business world and has had to deal with "outside management consultants" brought in by higher ups knows that if they deny access to those "outside management consultants" they'll likely loose their job.

Yep. Nothing to gain by shutting them out. Make them your best buddies, like in "Office Space".

Benihana
04-25-2008, 04:45 PM
Regardless, anyone who has worked in the business world and has had to deal with "outside management consultants" brought in by higher ups knows that if they deny access to those "outside management consultants" they'll likely loose their job.

Exactly. Stormy, I like the job Krivsky did too, and am sad to see him go. However you have to have knowledge of the business world as well, and the politics that go on behind them. If you don't play that game, you get burned. He may have done a good job, but he certainly didn't endear himself to those working with him, or more importantly those in charge. In that scenario, as soon as things don't start going your way, you're going to lose your job- every single time in every single industry. That Wayne didn't have the smarts to play this game was his undoing, coupled with the presence of the 500 lb. gorilla named Walt.

I believe something similar happened with DePodesta in LA, and he hasn't been hired since (despite engineering some great baseball moves.)

Stormy
04-25-2008, 04:48 PM
I also don't think it's very fair to call Jocketty a "vulture in waiting", even if I think Wayne did a pretty good job. I'm going to give Walt the benefit of the doubt as I don't have any reason to believe he was actively angling for Wayne's job.

You're right on both posts (ditto for Benihana). However, the vulture-in-waiting allusion is directed at Castellini's aspirations of Walt, not Jocketty's angling. Obviously, the second Jocketty arrived, Wayne was a lame duck, and a firing 22 games into the season confirms that. Castellini is impetuous, and doesn't know the first thing about baseball or contention. Fortunately, we have an astute guide in Walt. Nonethless, Krivsky was shafted, and we have no idea if the post-firing spin about his behavior has any accuracy at all? Agreed?

Caveat Emperor
04-25-2008, 04:55 PM
Krivsky was shafted, and we have no idea if the post-firing spin about his behavior has any accuracy at all? Agreed?

I dunno...

So far it's the only explanation for things that fits the facts.

pedro
04-25-2008, 05:00 PM
You're right on both posts (ditto for Benihana). However, the vulture-in-waiting allusion is directed at Castellini's aspirations of Walt, not Jocketty's angling. Obviously, the second Jocketty arrived, Wayne was a lame duck, and a firing 22 games into the season confirms that. Castellini is impetuous, and doesn't know the first thing about baseball or contention. Fortunately, we have an astute guide in Walt. Nonethless, Krivsky was shafted, and we have no idea if the post-firing spin about his behavior has any accuracy at all? Agreed?

I see what you're saying but I just don't have enough information to really know one way or the other and it's quite likely I never will.

WVRedsFan
04-25-2008, 05:26 PM
This is the first explanation that makes any sense. I imagine it was the first Castellini had heard about it and he blew up. It totally explains the firing.

Like One Upper said, you embrace these guys. Give them total access unless you're doing something underhanded, which I don't think Krivsky was. Looks like Wayne might have shot himself in the foot.

Anyway, it's a shame for all parties involved.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 05:33 PM
I could care less if Krivsky saw it coming. And I could care less if Krivsky took his 'vulture-in-waiting' into his inner circle. The only relevant question is 'was it meritorious' to fire Krivsky barely two years after taking over perhaps the most dysfunctional franchise in the NL?


It seems like the front office was very dysfunctional under Wayne.
I don't even remember Bowden having so many disgruntled ex-employees and coworkers.
I've seen it happen outside of baseball as well. The guy in the office that gets things done, but is such a pain in the rear, that when it's time to lay somone off, he's at the list.

It appears that Wayne had a bit of insubordination in him as well. That's never going to sit well with a boss.



Of course, given Krivsky's vast improvement of the talent base throughout the organization, the answer is a resounding 'no.' If Bob Castellini wants to observe an unintelligible buffoon in terms of organizational design, and public relations, he need look no further than the mirror each morning.

Wayne made plenty of mistakes in contracts and aquisions as well.

The fact is that Wayne wasn't a horrible GM nor a brilliant one.
He is very replacable, IMO.

Chip R
04-25-2008, 05:37 PM
I don't even remember Bowden having so many disgruntled ex-employees and coworkers.


:lol: Good one. :lol:

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 05:38 PM
. Nonethless, Krivsky was shafted, and we have no idea if the post-firing spin about his behavior has any accuracy at all? Agreed?

You might think he was shafted.
There's no reason to doubt these numerous reports of Wayne having serious people skill problems.

I know Hal McCoy is not everyone's favorite reporter, but usually he loves to take the side of a matyr. He's written a sympathetic piece about just about every manager that was fired. Why would he emphasize that Wayne changed, had his own inner circle, etc? I find it hard to believe Hal has any kind of agenda here. It would've been a lot easier to write a sympathy article like Stark did.

Cast has too much class to hold a press conference and publicly roast Wayne for all his faults. He chose to be diplomatic about the firing so he wouldn't hurt Wayne's future career.

bucksfan2
04-25-2008, 05:44 PM
It seems like the front office was very dysfunctional under Wayne.
I don't even remember Bowden having so many disgruntled ex-employees and coworkers.
I've seen it happen outside of baseball as well. The guy in the office that gets things done, but is such a pain in the rear, that when it's time to lay somone off, he's at the list.

It appears that Wayne had a bit of insubordination in him as well. That's never going to sit well with a boss.



Wayne made plenty of mistakes in contracts and aquisions as well.

The fact is that Wayne wasn't a horrible GM nor a brilliant one.
He is very replacable, IMO.

Who cares if the ex employees were disgruntled? The reds farm system had been poor for years. The disgruntled ex-employees needed to find another organization. Its like Wayne came in, the employees were used to a cushy job in which the end product really didn't matter, and stirred the pot. If you don't do a good job and you are fired you are the person to blame not the guy who did the firing.

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 05:44 PM
This is the first explanation that makes any sense. I imagine it was the first Castellini had heard about it and he blew up. It totally explains the firing.

Like One Upper said, you embrace these guys. Give them total access unless you're doing something underhanded, which I don't think Krivsky was. Looks like Wayne might have shot himself in the foot.

Anyway, it's a shame for all parties involved.

Castellini's just finding out about this three months after he hires Jockety to be his special advisor? That's just a bit farfetched. What on earth have they been talking about since then? At no point in the last three months, Bob doesn't say, "Walt, what's Wayne got to say about this?" or any similar type question? Jockety doesn't speak up at the conclusion of Spring Training, for instance, and says "I can't assess where things are because Wayne's not putting me in the loop?".

Again, that just doesn't seem plausible.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 05:52 PM
Who cares if the ex employees were disgruntled? The reds farm system had been poor for years. The disgruntled ex-employees needed to find another organization. Its like Wayne came in, the employees were used to a cushy job in which the end product really didn't matter, and stirred the pot. .

I get concerned when the guy that found Ceuto quits in disgust.

I also get alarmed when Wayne ignores guys that advise him not to make bad moves. If Wayne had done a little more collaboration, he might've avoided the mistakes that cost him his job.

And again, the farm system was seeded by DanO. Hopefully Wayne's draft bring a new wave of talent, but it's too early to tell. IMO, considering the farm rebirth, it's not fair to characterize the Reds employees as slackers.



If you don't do a good job and you are fired you are the person to blame not the guy who did the firing.

I agree. Wayne only has himself to blame for being fired. Not evil Cast ;)

Guacarock
04-25-2008, 05:53 PM
You gotta assume Jocketty leaked this to Rigolsby, seeing as how Jocketty formerly served in Denver as assistant general manager for the Rockies. If so, this is no doubt the pretext for why Krivsky got the axe, although the die was already cast when Cast appointed Jocketty as a special assistant last winter.

Will be interesting to see if Rigolsby gets the bead on other Reds' stories moving ahead.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-25-2008, 05:54 PM
Krivsky was treated just as he treated Mackanin.

I don't feel sorry for him.

Wheelhouse
04-25-2008, 06:03 PM
Krivsky was treated just as he treated Mackanin.

I don't feel sorry for him.

I agree. We don't spend five seconds worrying about a player who gets cut, why worry about an exec?

IslandRed
04-25-2008, 06:07 PM
I have a feeling that if Krivsky had brought Jocketty into the discussions, and then did what he thought best even if Jocketty disagreed, today we'd be hearing that Krivsky was fired because he ignored Jocketty's input.

I understand the notion of office politics but I've never been a fan of powerless titles. I get the notion that the only way Krivsky could have kept his job was to clear every move he made with Jocketty, making Walt the de facto GM. If that's the case, then Castellini should have made sure that was understood. And then Krivsky could have decided whether to keep drawing a paycheck as a puppet or resign in protest.

WMR
04-25-2008, 06:50 PM
This all sounds very plausible to me. Wayne is infamous for his cloak and dagger style.

WVRedsFan
04-25-2008, 06:56 PM
I have a feeling that if Krivsky had brought Jocketty into the discussions, and then did what he thought best even if Jocketty disagreed, today we'd be hearing that Krivsky was fired because he ignored Jocketty's input.

I understand the notion of office politics but I've never been a fan of powerless titles. I get the notion that the only way Krivsky could have kept his job was to clear every move he made with Jocketty, making Walt the de facto GM. If that's the case, then Castellini should have made sure that was understood. And then Krivsky could have decided whether to keep drawing a paycheck as a puppet or resign in protest.

Of course, none of us know whether Castellini told him or not, but I imagine that discussion on Wednesday morning involved this. I can see a scenario whereby Krivsky was doing his own thing throughout 2006 and 2007 and the results as defined by the owner weren't much to brag about. Krivsky brings in Jocketty to "oversee" what's going on and Krivsky just falt out refuses to put him in the loop. I can also see acquisitions that Jocketty didn't like happening without any discussion. For some reason, the Fogg acquisition seems to jump out at me. Dusty said he didn't have knowledge of it and I'd guess neither did Jocketty. When Fogg just stunk up the place and the team headed south on the W-L side, Krivsky was ordered to put Walt in the loop and Krivsky continued on as usual.

This is all speculation and maybe there's not a bit of truth in it. The possibility exists that the column was fabricated or based on information from Jocketty, but I keep going back to Fogg. I just think there's something in that deal that set the whole thing off.

RFS62
04-25-2008, 06:59 PM
You're right on both posts (ditto for Benihana). However, the vulture-in-waiting allusion is directed at Castellini's aspirations of Walt, not Jocketty's angling. Obviously, the second Jocketty arrived, Wayne was a lame duck, and a firing 22 games into the season confirms that. Castellini is impetuous, and doesn't know the first thing about baseball or contention. Fortunately, we have an astute guide in Walt. Nonethless, Krivsky was shafted, and we have no idea if the post-firing spin about his behavior has any accuracy at all? Agreed?



I agree with this. I'm not blaming Jocketty at all. This is all on Castellini.

Spitball
04-25-2008, 07:22 PM
Krivsky was treated just as he treated Mackanin.

I don't feel sorry for him.

Wait, I doubt very much this is true.

From Bill Madden's column in the Daily News:

"In Baker's case, Reds owner Bob Castellini superceded his GM, Wayne Krivsky (who was of a mind to retain Pete Mackanin, who'd gone 41-39 after taking over the Reds from Jerry Narron last July) and made it clear he wanted a "name" manager."

Again, Mackanin was surely a victim of Castellini's decision making and not Krivsky's. Mack was Krivsky's man.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 07:29 PM
Again, Mackanin was surely a victim of Castellini's decision making and not Krivsky's. Mack was Krivsky's man.


Actually, it seems pretty plausible that with Wayne on thin ice at the end of the season that Cast didn't want to be stuck with Mack or one of Wayne's guys. Wayne might've given Cast a long contract.

The other thing is that perhaps Cast or one of Cast's advisors had already had discussions with Baker and came away impressed. Dusty certainly seems to be more aligned with Cast's vision of bringing a winner on the field and restoring credibility to this franchise.

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 07:48 PM
Actually, it seems pretty plausible that with Wayne on thin ice at the end of the season that Cast didn't want to be stuck with Mack or one of Wayne's guys. Wayne might've given Cast a long contract.

The other thing is that perhaps Cast or one of Cast's advisors had already had discussions with Baker and came away impressed. Dusty certainly seems to be more aligned with Cast's vision of bringing a winner on the field and restoring credibility to this franchise.

You're once again positing that Krivsky was on thin ice at the end of the 2007, stating it more or less as fact. I don't recall anything but the standard "he's going a fine job" line at that time. Can you share with us how you're privy to all this inside info?

Secondly, at the time Baker was hired, both Castellini and Krivskey intimated that they had approached Baker when Narron was let go, but he rebuffed them at that time (and rebuff might be too strong a word - I can't recall the particulars on that).

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 08:03 PM
You're once again positing that Krivsky was on thin ice at the end of the 2007, stating it more or less as fact. I don't recall anything but the standard "he's going a fine job" line at that time. Can you share with us how you're privy to all this inside info?

Secondly, at the time Baker was hired, both Castellini and Krivskey intimated that they had approached Baker when Narron was let go, but he rebuffed them at that time (and rebuff might be too strong a word - I can't recall the particulars on that).

Yes, it's speculation that Wayne was on thin ice after 2007.

Here's why I think so though:
1. 72 win season (8 wins less than the previous)
2. A lot of bad decisions
3. Walt was brought in
4. He was fired 20 games into this season.

If Baker turned them down earlier, then I don't know how they were able to talk him into the job about a year later.
Not doubting what you say, I'm just don't know how to rationalize it.

nate
04-25-2008, 08:26 PM
The other thing is that perhaps Cast or one of Cast's advisors had already had discussions with Baker and came away impressed. Dusty certainly seems to be more aligned with Cast's vision of bringing a winner on the field and restoring credibility to this franchise.

If that scenario is true, and I'm not saying it is, it really paints Bob in a poor light. Who wants to work for a boss who's trying to do your job?

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 08:44 PM
If Baker turned them down earlier, then I don't know how they were able to talk him into the job about a year later.
Not doubting what you say, I'm just don't know how to rationalize it.

It wasn't a year later. As I recall, they approached him when Narron was let go, he wasn't ready at that point. Let me see if I can find the story from the hiring. I believe it was mentioned then.

Okay, here's the link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3064610


About that time, general manager Wayne Krivsky first approached Baker, who was fired by the Cubs after their last-place finish in 2006. Baker spent this year away from the game, using the break to work as an ESPN analyst and spend time with his family.

"It was necessary because I had to let some wounds heal from Chicago," Baker said. "I was beat up pretty good when I was there."

Baker didn't hear from the Reds again until after the season. By then, they had decided he was the one they wanted.

The first paragraph is poorly crafted because there seems to be no specific reference to the "about that time"

Stormy
04-26-2008, 12:31 AM
Wait, I doubt very much this is true.

From Bill Madden's column in the Daily News:

"In Baker's case, Reds owner Bob Castellini superceded his GM, Wayne Krivsky (who was of a mind to retain Pete Mackanin, who'd gone 41-39 after taking over the Reds from Jerry Narron last July) and made it clear he wanted a "name" manager."

Again, Mackanin was surely a victim of Castellini's decision making and not Krivsky's. Mack was Krivsky's man.

Right on, bro. Krivsky's boy was Petey Mac, and it is a certainty that he would have retained Pete (who demonstrated a capacity to win with this squad) if given the opportunity. It was the 'style over substance' nimrod known as Castellini who was insistent on Dusty Baker, purely because he thinks name recognition equates to winning.

I'm sure BCast convinced Krivsky that he was equally behind Dusty's hiring, but that doesn't follow the actual narrative at all. Krivsky was stuck with 2 managers he didn't pick, a petulant rube of an owner, and a de facto GM in waiting looking over his shoulder less than 2 years in. Krivsky's only managerial hire won immediately, and his transaction history netted the Reds a great deal more talent than he inherited. What more can a GM do? It is a travesty.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2008, 12:39 AM
Right on, bro. Krivsky's boy was Petey Mac, and it is a certainty that he would have retained Pete (who demonstrated a capacity to win with this squad) if given the opportunity. It was the 'style over substance' nimrod known as Castellini who was insistent on Dusty Baker, purely because he thinks name recognition equates to winning.

I'm sure BCast convinced Krivsky that he was equally behind Dusty's hiring, but that doesn't follow the actual narrative at all. Krivsky was stuck with 2 managers he didn't pick, a petulant rube of an owner, and a de facto GM in waiting looking over his shoulder less than 2 years in. Krivsky's only managerial hire won immediately, and his transaction history netted the Reds a great deal more talent than he inherited. What more can a GM do? It is a travesty.

Yep, the difference between this team winning and this team being at the very bottom of the NL is having Baker instead of Mackanin.

Stormy
04-26-2008, 12:42 AM
Yep, the difference between this team winning and this team being at the very bottom of the NL is having Baker instead of Mackanin.

Not what I said at all, in fact it's not even the topic of discussion. The issue being proffered is whether Krivsky had the latitude to make his own executive decisions or not. As for Petey Mac versus Dusty, the records speak for themselves so far despite Petey having access to neither Cueto nor Volquez in his abhorrent rotation.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-26-2008, 12:55 AM
Right on, bro. Krivsky's boy was Petey Mac, and it is a certainty that he would have retained Pete (who demonstrated a capacity to win with this squad) if given the opportunity. It was the 'style over substance' nimrod known as Castellini who was insistent on Dusty Baker, purely because he thinks name recognition equates to winning.

I'm sure BCast convinced Krivsky that he was equally behind Dusty's hiring, but that doesn't follow the actual narrative at all. Krivsky was stuck with 2 managers he didn't pick, a petulant rube of an owner, and a de facto GM in waiting looking over his shoulder less than 2 years in. Krivsky's only managerial hire won immediately, and his transaction history netted the Reds a great deal more talent than he inherited. What more can a GM do? It is a travesty.

I'm starting to wonder if BC is the problem.

I made my post about karma and me not having sympathy for Wayne based on information that I had received from someone close to the Mackanin situation (see the Wayne Krivsky: Zero Integity thread, page 4) in which Wayne apparently ignored Mackanin during the deliberation period before it was determined they were going another way.

Perhaps Wayne was just upset about the decision to go with Baker and didn't know how to let his friend know he had been screwed by an ass-backward organization.

WVRedsFan
04-26-2008, 01:09 AM
I'm starting to wonder if BC is the problem.

I made my post about karma and me not having sympathy for Wayne based on information that I had received from someone close to the Mackanin situation (see the Wayne Krivsky: Zero Integity thread, page 4) in which Wayne apparently ignored Mackanin during the deliberation period before it was determined they were going another way.

Perhaps Wayne was just upset about the decision to go with Baker and didn't know how to let his friend know he had been screwed by an ass-backward organization.

Here's what confuses me. A lot .

First off, what's done is done. Krivsky is gone and he ain't coming back and Castellini will be here for years. 1,000 + posts about what a horrible person and baseball executive Castellini is means little more than a warm pitcher of spit. Maybe he is and maybe he's not. He's impatient, I do know that.

That said, I heard Krivsky say twice on radio in the last two days say that Dusty Baker was absolutely the best man for the Reds job. Twice. Now we can spin it by saying that he's saving face for being snookered by Castellini or he doesn't want to make waves, but I believe him. I really saw no evidence that he gave much support to Mackanin, but that's just my impression and means little. Mackanin himself commented several days after the end of the season that he had heard from no one.