Originally Posted by Spring~Fields
Those are obstacles and barriers to achieving organizational goals and objectives.
But, I guess that might be ďmy problemĒ, with some of your points, no matter how well you state them or endure the course with it.
For example you will list what seems to be reasonable obstacles, barriers and hurdles that Mr. Jocketty has to deal with and that really can be hindrances, and basically you ask us or say that we should be reasonable and excuse what has been for him.
Yet, you donít seem to list and consider that Bowden, OíBrien and Krivsky, had obstacles, barriers and hurdles that hindered them too, many of those same hindrances that you ask us to be reasonable about when discussing Mr. Jocketty could readily or easily be applied to his predecessors too. You seem to want us to discount to a great deal anything that the predecessors did accomplish or do right, also.
Most of all we really donít know what ownership or that ownership group laid out for those GMís to function under. We certainly can guess that it wasnít that great of a environment to succeed in, certainly not compared to the one in St. Louis 2000 forward.
Jim Bowden as much I donít like him, for years was neck and neck with Walt Jocketty and the St. Louis Cardinals, and they were truly competitive with one another, not this thing we call completive now, fourth or fifth place and a hopless prayer every off-season or spring, then a long endurance of frustration. Those two organizations took turns at being on top and winning. Until the dollars changed in large amounts upward for St. Louis, and stagnated for Bowden and the Reds.
I think that you should at least consider that each of the GMís have or had some serious obstacles with their time with the Reds.
Not just in favor of supporting your points on Jocketty.
I donít think that you will be given your points until, you also recognize what the men before Jocketty had to work with, and in the environment that they were asked to succeed in, and correctly give them credit for what they did right, not just what they did wrong.
Then again we have to run some double mindedness when arguing Jocketty vs the others, because we want Jocketty to do very well on one hand, but on the other we are trying to argue against him because of some of the double standards that are not right vs the other guys. It is hard to play it both ways, at the same time.
Nice post. A couple of points:
- Regarding WK, my problem with him was less about his performance and more about his philosophy. The philosophy of trying to win now when it was obvious that it was the wrong choice. He was given (in Cincy's respect) an open wallet and failed to deliver. And I really don't have much sympathy for the "Bob is a crazy owner" hurdle, since he had plenty of interviews and time to consider Bob's expectations. I felt that the money was allocated in the wrong way. I think that has been proven now.
- I am pointing out the hurdles that Walt has had to deal with because they are current and out there. Maybe O'Brien had some and maybe Wayne had some. To me, both the economy and 50% of his payroll tied up in three guys is tough to swallow. Plus, I am not "making excuses" for his performance, just his "lack of activity". There is a difference.
- The last thing is that I'm not really making excuses for Jocketty. To me, this is factual. I am really unsure what anyone wanted him to do when he had little payroll flexibility and an economic crisis happening around him. All I have heard is that he is the GM and he needs to figure it out. Sometimes it is out of a GM's hands. And I thought he played the situation beautifully by sucking it up and standing pat for a time, even when the fans were screaming that he was asleep. I really wanted WK to suck it up and save the money for when Votto, Homer and Bruce were maturing. Not when the team had little to no shot.