Rank the drafting of the Reds GMs since Bowden?

[thorn]

Just curious, but doesn't the GM determine who the scouting director (Or whoever is in charge of the draft) is and if so is directly responsible for good or bad drafts? I remember watching Kenny Williams of the White Sox on MLB Network (They did a show on Ozzie, following him all year, or something like that) and he seemed to be working hard making decisions during the draft, maybe not whom but certainly money, but he seemed to have a ton of input. This could just be a GM who really likes to get involved, like some owners, but I wouldn't place drafts success or failures strictly on Scouting Directors. Maybe the Reds are different.

[redsfandan]

Except you are asking a question that really doesn't matter because as noted, the GM's don't really draft guys. Most of them just approve the budget and and let the scouting director make the decisions based on what his scouts tell him.

I don't think he slammed your topic, but just added information to it that suggests the topic should go in a different direction.

Seriously, Doug, you're kidding right?

[dougdirt]

Seriously, Doug, you're kidding right?

No, I am not.

[camisadelgolf]

Just curious, but doesn't the GM determine who the scouting director (Or whoever is in charge of the draft) is and if so is directly responsible for good or bad drafts? I remember watching Kenny Williams of the White Sox on MLB Network (They did a show on Ozzie, following him all year, or something like that) and he seemed to be working hard making decisions during the draft, maybe not whom but certainly money, but he seemed to have a ton of input. This could just be a GM who really likes to get involved, like some owners, but I wouldn't place drafts success or failures strictly on Scouting Directors. Maybe the Reds are different.

This should go down as the other potentially-good post in this thread.

[mth123]

Personally, I don't think the original post was so horrible and the response to it was out of bounds IMO. Terminology may have been inexact, but each regime is responsible for the drafts under it. If we're going to go public with some type of rating of posts in this thread, I'd say number two was uncalled for, number three was not a good resposnse to it and number 4 was an attempt to antagonize. The minor league forum has been able to avoid the sniping we see in the other forums and this thread bothered me.

As to the original question, Bowden's regime seems to have resulted in the two best major leaguers so far (Votto and Dunn) but he was obviously hampered by a kook of an owner who really prevented the team from doing any good in the draft. The fact that Bowden seems to be a kook in his own right didn't help much. Ultimately, it could be argued that the drafting of Drew Stubbs over Tim Lincecum resulted in the Giants and Rangers in the series this year. Lincecum has been the Giants ace and the one that the Reds are lacking. Had the Reds had the TOR covered, I wonder if the Hamilton for Volquez deal would have gone down. The Reds would have the guys likely to win the MVP in both leagues in addition to a two time Cy Young winner at the TOR with guys like Bruce and Cueto excelling even further in second banana roles. The Giants and Rangers would both be w/o thier best players and its doubtful either would be in this year's series.

That said, nobody really knows what would have gone down and I would have supported a Hamilton deal anyway. I share an opinion that the turn-around began with the DanO regime but I think removing Marge and Bowden from the equation may have been more resposnsible than the individual decisions of any of the guys who came after.

[redsfandan]

No, I am not.

Maybe it's just that I think people could show a little more respect if they have a problem with a thread topic.

Except you are asking a question that really doesn't matter because as noted, the GM's don't really draft guys. Most of them just approve the budget and and let the scouting director make the decisions based on what his scouts tell him.

I don't think he slammed your topic, but just added information to it that suggests the topic should go in a different direction.

Instead of only saying what you think is wrong with a topic why not point it towards the direction that you guys think it should/could go?

[dougdirt]

Maybe it's just that I think people could show a little more respect if they have a problem with a thread topic.


Instead of only saying what you think is wrong with a topic why not point it towards the direction that you guys think it should/could go?

I don't feel that I was disrespectful at all. I didn't call anyone names or insult anyone's intelligence in my post. I simply stated that most GM's simply let the guys that they hired to do the scouting and run the scouting department do their jobs in the draft. I don't know where that the thread 'could go' from there. The guy currently in place spans two GM's.

[redsfandan]

I don't feel that I was disrespectful at all. I didn't call anyone names or insult anyone's intelligence in my post. I simply stated that most GM's simply let the guys that they hired to do the scouting and run the scouting department do their jobs in the draft. I don't know where that the thread 'could go' from there. The guy currently in place spans two GM's.

The line about respect was directed more towards cam. Although, like I said before, both of you guys seemed to have a problem with the topic. All ya gotta do is make a suggestion if you feel it should go in another direction.

[*BaseClogger*]

[redsfandan]

Is it wrong that all I see are legs? :

[Plus Plus]

The line about respect was directed more towards cam. Although, like I said before, both of you guys seemed to have a problem with the topic. All ya gotta do is make a suggestion if you feel it should go in another direction.

Or make the simple logical connection between "Rank the drafting of the Reds' GMs since Bowden?" to "Rank the drafting of the Reds' regime under the GMs since Bowden."

The insistence on antagonizing or playing at something other than the thread's purpose is as tiresome as reading about how posters "don't know who Alonzo is." Sometimes it doesn't take name calling or obvious insults of intelligence to antagonize someone.

That being said, I agree with those who would rank Bowden towards the bottom of the list. 11 years of drafting and only 44 players who saw the majors is pretty abysmal.

[kaldaniels]

Doesn't the buck stop with the GM?