What did Walt Jocketty do differently?

[wolfboy]

As others have stated, Walt has been able to concentrate more on the big picture. I think his close relationship with Bob, coupled with a relatively strong sense of job security has allowed him to do so. That is a luxury that his two predecessors likely did not have.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Spring~Fields

I don't think that is what Walt Jocketty and Dusty Baker have said about their predecessors in the article above.

I think they are saying that they acquired some good arms. They aren't saying that they did a good job as GM overall.

There is a difference.

[medford]

Not to rehash the rolen trade and if it was a good move or not, but redread sparked a thought. Lets say the Rolen trade didn't happen last year, and we're sitting here in spring training w/ Edwin still at 3rd, sill shakey on defense and streaky on offense. We've also have as strong a collection of young pitchers in or near the majors as anyone in baseball, but could use a solid veteran at the plate w/ a history of proven defense (as well as injury question marks). I suspect the exact same trade would be viewed more positively here on redszone. Sure Stewart was having a great season, but he was still only a year into professional baseball (or a year and a half now) and was a converted college reliever. But w/ Chapman, Bailey, wood, Cueto, Maloney, Leake, Volquez all right there or above the prospect level as Stewart, he seems much more expendable than he did at the time of the trade last season.

Sure Jockettey couldn't have known about Chapman at that point, but perhaps he felt pretty strong in his collection of Homer, Wood, Cueto, Leake (was he drafted yet? I think so) & Volquez to feel pretty confident in trading Stewart for an upgrade at 3rd.

Other than that, Walt inherited a much better organization than Dan O' did. I'm not sure if the commitment to LA started under Wayne or under Walt, but he's definently paid more attention there and has been a strong player in that market.

[TheNext44]

Biggest and most important difference:

Jocketty, just coming off 14 successful years with the Cards, never felt he had to prove himself, which enabled him to stay to a long term course. This also enabled him to convince his owner to stay to a long term course.

O'Brien went "all in" with the signing of Milton and trying to sign Matt Morris. This was after he was brought in rebuild from within. Don't know if it was his call, or at the orders of Linder, but either he didn't have the confidence to convince Linder to stay with rebuilding, or thought that he needed to "win now" to keep his job.

Krivsky went "all in" with the Kearns trade and then again with the Hamilton trade. But the biggest problem that Krivsky had was that he forced out many of the Reds top talent evaluators and front office staff, in order to prove that he was in charge. He did not play well with others, as I used to mark on kids charts when I taught elementary school. It seemed that Krivsky never felt secure in his job, and always felt like he had something to prove.

Jocketty never has seemed to care whether he keeps this job or not, and definitely has never seemed to have something to prove.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

I think they are saying that they acquired some good arms. They aren't saying that they did a good job as GM overall.

There is a difference.

And what is the tangible and marked "differnce" without those arms and the ground work and foundation that those before them laid? Even though a winning season remains to be seen.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Spring~Fields

And what is the tangible and marked "differnce" without those arms and the ground work and foundation that those before them laid? Even though a winning season remains to be seen.

You could also ask what the difference would be w/o some of those wonderful contracts that were signed.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

You could also ask what the difference would be w/o some of those wonderful contracts that were signed.

Are you referring to the contracts of Griffey, Larkin, Casey and Milton?

Or some other pitchers who if not signed, that might have been with another team, and would have had to be replaced, even their contributions to the team, with other’s, at what cost? It is not hard to imagine how bad a bad team would have been without them. Are those some of the same pitchers that Mr. Jocketty, and Mr. Baker are counting on this season too and apparently wanted to keep?

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

The short answer: no big, stupid mistakes. Acquire assets at every opportunity and don't lock yourself in to mediocrity. The end.

Well, the Rolen trade was a mistake but the Chapman signing made up for it.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by BCubb2003

Perhaps we should wait until we have actual results, like a winning season, but maybe it's good to track this as we go. Walt Jocketty has had about the same amount of time or less than Wayne Krivsky and Dan O'Brien had, yet seems to have the organization in much better shape. What did he do differently? If you wanted to replicate a GM who's successful in a short amount of time for a struggling small-market team, what could you take from Jocketty's strategy so far?

Huh? Let's try this exercise...

What if Jocketty had done nothing? Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the team would be in just as good shape as it is now. So what are we giving him credit for?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Spring~Fields

Are you referring to the contracts of Griffey, Larkin, Casey and Milton?

Or some other pitchers who if not signed, that might have been with another team, and would have had to be replaced, even their contributions to the team, with other’s, at what cost? It is not hard to imagine how bad a bad team would have been without them. Are those some of the same pitchers that Mr. Jocketty, and Mr. Baker are counting on this season too and apparently wanted to keep?

I'm referring to all the money wasted over the past number of years on players that didn't get this team to a winning season.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by kpresidente

Huh? Let's try this exercise...

What if Jocketty had done nothing? Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the team would be in just as good shape as it is now. So what are we giving him credit for?

One of the things I think he deserves credit for is his patience. If others were in charge, do you think there would have been a shot of us having an anchor like Bradley or Burrell on this team?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

One of the things I think he deserves credit for is his patience. If others were in charge, do you think there would have been a shot of us having an anchor like Bradley or Burrell on this team?

Others were pressured into moves by an impatient owner who didn't trust them to do their job. Walt has not seemed to have had that pressure and there have been no word leaking out about it either.

[wolfboy]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Others were pressured into moves by an impatient owner who didn't trust them to do their job. Walt has not seemed to have had that pressure and there have been no word leaking out about it either.

I think this sums up the most important distinction quite nicely. It would be interesting to see what the others could have done given the same degree of patience and leeway. I don't think we'd be any better off, but it would be interesting to see how it might have changed things.

[RedsManRick]

I do wonder how much credit we're giving Walt for the situation he inherited. In reality, Bowden left the system pretty much barren and the major league team with an offense but no pitching and poor defense.

I don't know if O'Brien and/or Krivsky would have us where we are today had then been in place for longer, but I do know that Walt had much more to work with than either of them. That doesn't take away from what he done, but when you look at the biggest improvements we've had, aside from Chapman, it's been the maturation of players who were already here when Jocketty took over.

[TheNext44]

Originally Posted by kpresidente

Huh? Let's try this exercise...

What if Jocketty had done nothing? Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the team would be in just as good shape as it is now. So what are we giving him credit for?

The vast majority of the work that Jocketty has done has been pointed toward the future. Sure, the major league team looks pretty much the same as if nothing had been done, but the organization is completely different, both in talent, and in philosophy since he took over.

As Edabbs44 pointed out, a large part of it was not doing dumb things, not wasting resources on declining, or overvalued talent, which allows the Reds to keep everyone they have and sign Chapman.

But most importantly, Jocketty has shifted the overall philosophy of the minor leagues to one based on stockpiling depth and a balance between "tools' players and "ballplayers."

This difference will be seen in the future and for years to come. The Reds should have the depth in the organization to fill those 8-12 spots on the pitching staff, the 10-13 men on the bench, and holes created by injuries with cheap, young players that can provide around league average production. That is essential for a mid market team to win.

Now he did have more to work with, but he is the first Reds GM in decades that had this philosophy and stuck to it.