How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

[M2]

3)Redux for the "veterens". Casey,Wilson,Haynes,Graves,Larson ete. Bring them back, see if they can bring their value back up and possibly trade them.

Even when jerry-rigging an argument to support DanO, you manage to point out something he failed to do. 3/5 of that list did bring up their value. 2/5 of that list should have been at the top of the team's to trade list. None of them got dealt.

Maybe DanO was to "sleepish" he missed on some big deal that would have transformed the Reds around.

Back to the same old strawman again. NO ONE expected DanO to transform the Reds in one season. That is a false expectation you've invented for argumentative purposes. What people expected, or at least hoped for, was that DanO would be able to diagnose the team's averarching problem -- lack of pitching -- and start adding players who could be part of a rebuilt, quality staff.

It's a problem he should have been aware of walking into the job, because it's no more difficult than going to zoo and picking out the elephants. Yet he got next to nothing. Every single kid arm DanO brought in is covered in warts. All of them, except maybe Kozlowski who's coming back from TJ surgery, has been getting exposed in the minor leagues. So we do have a clue as to how they'll turn out. That clue is performance and their performances tell you that unless they start doing some things a whole lot better, then we needn't worry about them being quality pitchers in the majors. Where the clues/evidence is lacking is in support of the notion that they've got bright futures ahead of them.

I agree DanO had/has limited resources in terms of cash and talent. Welcome to the Cincinnati Reds. That's not going to change any time soon. Either he figures out how to operate with those limitations or he takes this team nowhere. So far he hasn't shown any ability to thrive within those constraints. You used the phrase "nihilisitc" earlier in this thread. Well, I think it's quintessential nihilism to sit and there and insist that the Reds can't start, and let me stress that word -- START, making the kinds of player acquisitions needed to turn this franchise around. I don't buy that sort of fatalism for a moment. You're trying to justify the team's lack of progress with the pat excuse that progress is an unattainable goal. Bull.

It's not like people are calling for his head, but surely you've got to recognize that more of what we've seen in DanO's first year would dig this franchise deeper into the hole. He's got to do far better than this if we want to be rooting for a winning franchise anytime this decade.

[SteelSD]

Maybe DanO was to "sleepish" he missed on some big deal that would have transformed the Reds around.

Look, it's obvious that you're wanting to give O'Brien the benefit of the doubt. I'm ok with that, but I'll remind you that this is a thread about rating a single year- not next year or the year after. 2004. No one's calling for O'Brien to be fired. I'm one of the fans who's excited to see what this offseason may hold for the franchise. If he does well, O'Brien's 2005 grade goes up.

But that doesn't affect his 2004 grade.

In rating 2004, let's take a look at the list of MLB performers that Dan O'Brien was able to acquire from outside the organization:

<Begin List>

...

<End List>

Sorry, man. If you have 12 months to bring in one performer- just one- and can't do it, you don't get a high grade. I didn't expect a dramatic turnaround in 2004. But not one guy? Well, I think we could all expect more than nothing.

[GAC]

Look, it's obvious that you're wanting to give O'Brien the benefit of the doubt. I'm ok with that, but I'll remind you that this is a thread about rating a single year- not next year or the year after. 2004. No one's calling for O'Brien to be fired. I'm one of the fans who's excited to see what this offseason may hold for the franchise. If he does well, O'Brien's 2005 grade goes up.

But that doesn't affect his 2004 grade.

In rating 2004, let's take a look at the list of MLB performers that Dan O'Brien was able to acquire from outside the organization:

<Begin List>

...

<End List>

Sorry, man. If you have 12 months to bring in one performer- just one- and can't do it, you don't get a high grade. I didn't expect a dramatic turnaround in 2004. But not one guy? Well, I think we could all expect more than nothing.

He may have gotten out of the gate slow, but lets hope DanO is a strong finisher. :allovrjr:

[Krusty]

Rome wasn't built in one day either.

[M2]

Rome wasn't built in one day either.

The Reds won't ever be built in this method and at this pace.

You even gave the guy a C for his first year performance. So now are you going to sit there and tell me he doesn't need to do better in order to turn this ship around?

[Krusty]

What did you expect, him to come in and turn things around over night? Did you think he was going to come in shoot from the hip......fire this guy, hire that guy. Trade players for the sake of making an impression in his first year?

Bowden did that in the past and look where it got us. But O'Brien takes his first year of taking his time to make an analysis of the club himself and everyone is up in his butt.

The guy was given three years to turn this thing around. His first year he brought in his baseball people he wanted. He instituted precedures to be done throughout the minor leagues. He gave lip service to the major league roster but I think he knew he couldn't change that over night. When the payroll was cut from 59 to 47 million, he was limited to what he could do.

Now is his second offseason. If he only gives lip service to the major league roster, than I'll be more critical especially if Allen and Lindner okays to raise the payroll.

[M2]

What did you expect, him to come in and turn things around over night? Did you think he was going to come in shoot from the hip......fire this guy, hire that guy. Trade players for the sake of making an impression in his first year?

Well, I've been pretty specific in this thread that I didn't expect anything of that sort and I've taken pains to state exactly what I did expect. Apparently you've glossed right over that stuff. I'm not going to bother rewriiting it.

I'll simply point out again that you gave O'Brien a C to start this thread so it would seem you're all too aware of the fact that he had a lackluster first year on the job. Now you're acting like it's all right to be a C student, like that's somehow something he should aspire to. It's not, so stop acting like he doesn't have to start doing a lot better if we want to see a turnaround at any point in the aughts. THAT, in a nutshell, is the criticism that's been levelled at DanO in this thread and the post you made to start this thread indicates that it's a sentiment with which you agree.

[DoogMinAmo]

I am curious, are these grades being handed to O'Brien for his first season:
A.) In comparison with other GMs
B.) In comparison with other GMs first seasons
C.) In comparison with a realistic season for a GM
D.) In comparison with lofty ideas of how a GM should act based on everyones intrenched and disgusted view of an organization that used to be in disarray.

I believe the majority of us are between C and D. What other GMs inherited organizations as messed up as ours recently? In all honesty, I don't believe Dan O has done a poor job for a first season. If this becomes the status quo and his approach in all other seasons, then yes it would be a low grade.

While a few of you are picking on Aronchis for saying that it is only his first season, and that future plans should have no indication or bearing on first season grades, I would like to point out, that it is his first season, first in a series. The man set his own goals, and he satisfied them to the best of his ability. If what we are grading him on is his ability, AND comparing that ability to others, AND what those others would do in an organization in their first year, then it is safe to say he failed or succeeded. However, if you are trying to blast him for not turning over an entire organization from loser to winner in one season, then it is a little brash. After all, if it is so easy to fix an organization, then why are so many other organizations in a mess? One of the downsides of Moneyball is that everyone now believes they have the "secret" elixir to fix it all. Its a tough job, I know I couldn't do it. I know a few of you here probably could handle it. The question is, what would your FIRST year grade be by the rest of us?

And Steel, saying he doesn't need an entire year to evaluate in baseball seems to be the antithesis of majority thinking on this board. Isn't the great equalizer here the myth of the "small sample size?" Would it be fair to those released and tainted if after only a short while O'Brien started to turn the whole organization on its heels? He took a year, evaluated talent, and accomplished some minor trades. NOW is time to see what he can do to fix the organization, and what indeed needs fixing.

[M2]

If this becomes the status quo and his approach in all other seasons, then yes it would be a low grade.

So when exactly should I grade 67 out of 100 like it was 67 out of 100?

However, if you are trying to blast him for not turning over an entire organization from loser to winner in one season, then it is a little brash.

Find me one person in this thread who's said anything like that. I'm getting real tired of having to discuss this fiction.

[DoogMinAmo]

So when exactly should I grade 67 out of 100 like it was 67 out of 100?




Find me one person in this thread who's said anything like that. I'm getting real tired of having to discuss this fiction.

So what is the 67, and what is the 100? As long as it is on the basis of a first year GM in a new organization, than feel free. I just don't think its fair to expect too much in the first year. Maybe that's my problem, lower standards...

By the way, I said most of us fall between the two extremes.

[M2]

So what is the 67, and what is the 100? As long as it is on the basis of a first year GM in a new organization, than feel free. I just don't think its fair to expect too much in the first year. Maybe that's my problem, lower standards...

You can check in my above posts for what I thought the 100 was. Honestly, I think my standards were set pretty low too. Even worse, since DanO made such little progress, I've got to grade him on the same material again.

[SteelSD]

And Steel, saying he doesn't need an entire year to evaluate in baseball seems to be the antithesis of majority thinking on this board. Isn't the great equalizer here the myth of the "small sample size?"

Huh?

Would it be fair to those released and tainted if after only a short while O'Brien started to turn the whole organization on its heels? He took a year, evaluated talent, and accomplished some minor trades. NOW is time to see what he can do to fix the organization, and what indeed needs fixing.

Please read the title of the thread.

[Steve4192]

I just don't think its fair to expect too much in the first year.

I disagree.

Paul DePodesta got immediate results this season, and manged to shave $20MM off the payroll in the process. Theo Epstein got immediate results in 2003 while shaving $9MM off his payroll. Both of those guys made bold moves IN THEIR FIRST YEAR, despite being under orders to cut payroll.

Depodesta shipped out Paul Loduca, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown. He added a combination of veterans (Juan Encarnacion, Jeff Weaver, Steve Finley, Jose Lima) and young guys (Milton Bradley, Jason Werth, Duaner Sanchez). The result of those moves was the Dodgers first trip the playoffs in eight years.

Epstein turned over half of the lineup in his first year, bringing in Bill Mueller to replace Shea Hillenbrand at 3B, Kevin Millar to replace Tony Clark at 1B, Todd Walker to replace Rey Sanchez at 2B, and David Ortiz to replace Brian Daubach at DH. He also rebuilt the bullpen with Scott Williamson, Byung-Hyun Kim, Ramiro Mendoza and Mike Timlin. The result of those moves was the Red Sox first trip to the playoffs in four years.

Management then rewarded Epstein by loosening the purse strings in year #2, allowing him to go out and get Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke. He then traded the best SS in the history of the club for a couple of judy hitting defensive specialists. The rest is history.

Good executives don't sit on their hands and take a year off to 'learn the organization'. They come in, learn the environment/organization ASAP, develop an action plan, and ACT on it.

[MWM]

Good executives don't sit on their hands and take a year off to 'learn the organization'. They come in, learn the environment/organization ASAP, develop an action plan, and ACT on it.

Fantastic paragraph, Steve. Pretty much sums it up for me.

[Kc61]

I disagree.

Paul DePodesta got immediate results this season, and manged to shave $20MM off the payroll in the process. Theo Epstein got immediate results in 2003 while shaving $9MM off his payroll. Both of those guys made bold moves IN THEIR FIRST YEAR, despite being under orders to cut payroll.

Depodesta shipped out Paul Loduca, Gary Sheffield, and Kevin Brown. He added a combination of veterans (Juan Encarnacion, Jeff Weaver, Steve Finley, Jose Lima) and young guys (Milton Bradley, Jason Werth, Duaner Sanchez). The result of those moves was the Dodgers first trip the playoffs in eight years.

Epstein turned over half of the lineup in his first year, bringing in Bill Mueller to replace Shea Hillenbrand at 3B, Kevin Millar to replace Tony Clark at 1B, Todd Walker to replace Rey Sanchez at 2B, and David Ortiz to replace Brian Daubach at DH. He also rebuilt the bullpen with Scott Williamson, Byung-Hyun Kim, Ramiro Mendoza and Mike Timlin. The result of those moves was the Red Sox first trip to the playoffs in four years.

Management then rewarded Epstein by loosening the purse strings in year #2, allowing him to go out and get Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke. He then traded the best SS in the history of the club for a couple of judy hitting defensive specialists. The rest is history.

Good executives don't sit on their hands and take a year off to 'learn the organization'. They come in, learn the environment/organization ASAP, develop an action plan, and ACT on it.

Very fine post. The problem, of course, is that Reds fans expect so little at this point that even conservative non-action is looked at as reasonable. The past is the past but now O'Brien has about 3 and a half months to show that he is capable of taking bold action and seriously improving the team.