Is the Presence of Jim Beattie scaring off some potential GM candidates?
On the other board, in the discussion about Mike Hill and others turning down interviews, M2 said:
"These are strange days in MLB. It's not just the Reds. Ass. GMs seem to be turning down GM interviews all over the place. Maybe that's why we've got this new abbreviation for all the happy lieutenants out there."
Could it be that the "Happy Lieutenants" out there are turning down interviews because of the perception that Jim Beattie, a two-time former GM, has already got the owner's ear.
Think about it. Guys like Antonetti and Mike Hill are (supposedly) happy in their roles as second fiddles (or third fiddle in Hill's case because of the hands-on style of Dave Sampson). The only reason they'd want to leave their situtations would be to get significantly more say and more power over what goes on in the baseball operation.
I'm not saying this as a slam on Beattie, because I have no reason to believe that he's a "usurper." But I think it would be natural for the GM candidates to see him as a threat to their power.
[somewhat unrelated note about Beattie: I've heard through the grapevine that Beattie developed a reputation in Baltimore for not working "GM hours." In other words, he wasn't coming into the office to work the hours expected of a modern GM (i.e. ALL hours). Has anybody else heard this?]
How, then, are those people of the future—who are taking steroids every day—going to look back on baseball players who used steroids? They're going to look back on them as pioneers. They're going to look back at it and say "So what?" - Bill James, Cooperstown and the 'Roids