Originally Posted by mth123
So the real question is this, if the team's success hinges on Bruce, Cueto and Bailey joinng Votto and becoming what their minor league pedigree suggests, how is that any different than Krivsky? Both brought in some important contributors (Phillips, Rolen) some stinkers (Stanton, Cormer, Lincoln and Taveras) and had some high dollar deals they inherited to limit their actions.
Find me a team that doesn't have stinkers. Find me a GM who hasn't bought a stinker in his career.
Every team's success hinges on a handful of players. Even more so when you are dealing with a small/middle market club. I would much rather place the success of my club on Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and Bailey instead of Hatteberg, Wilson, Joey Hamilton, etc.
I find it difficult to compare GM's without further knowledge. Its hard to know what edict either are given from the owner in regards to direction and finance. To me Jocketty has been rather inactive in making moves. The much maligned move to sign Taveras shouldn't hamstring a club. $7M over the course of 2 years shouldn't financially strap a club and if it does the owner should sell the team.
In Jocketty's tenure as a Red he let one player walk, Dunn, and traded one prospect of note, Stewart. Dunn wasn't coming back and Stewart has been discussed ad nauseum. At the same time Krivsky traded away the teams starting SS and RF in one trade in order to fix the bullpen. The price paid was very high at the time, in retrospect it probably was a net loss for both clubs.
I'm not really sure much has changed, except that Jocketty brought in Bavasi which may be a bigger long term negative than anything Krivsky did.
I may be in the minority here, but anytime you can bring in talent into the front office that is a good thing. Bavasi may have been a failure as a GM but he didn't work his way through the system by being an idiot. The same could be said about both Krivsky and Obie. Both were fired as a GM but would be a nice addition to any team's scouting department.