Who's gonna be the General Manager?

[Ceetar]

Sure. There's almost definitely some of that. Of course they passed up a guy named Chaim.

I reject this 'baseball lifer' stuff that only people that have been GMs before are good GMs going forward.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know who the best candidate was or could have been, but I disagree that his background doesn't count as relevant experience. It's as relevant as, say, Sandy Alderson's or Frank Cashen's when they got their first GM appointments. Probably moreso.

Sandy Alderson was hired in 1981. Frank Cashen in the 60's. We are living in a different world. A move can't be "innovative" if the parallels are from several decades ago.

If your goal is sustained success, the candidate that best maximized our chances at achieving that is Chaim Bloom. Again, unless the Wilpons are privy to information that we don't know. But nothing presented to us backs that up. Nothing has been shown that this move is in, any way, "innovative".

"Strange" yes. Innovative, no.

[Centerfield]

Ceetar wrote: I reject this 'baseball lifer' stuff that only people that have been GMs before are good GMs going forward.

I agree with this. Especially with advanced stats, etc.

And for the record, I think BVW could be great. But he just as easily could be terrible. We'll have to wait and see.

[Ceetar]

I don't think the error bars for 'could be great/could be terrible' are really that much different for BVW or Bloom or Ng or really anyone they interviewed.

And I mean, yes, the Wilpons are privy to a ton of information we don't know about these people. I mean, it's in large part an 'idea' job, and they had hours of conversation about what to do.

[Benjamin Grimm]

As I said earlier, my guess is that they liked BVW's plan better than Bloom's plan. And that doesn't necessarily mean that BVW's plan was better, just that he was better at selling it.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I don't know who the best candidate was or could have been, but I disagree that his background doesn't count as relevant experience. It's as relevant as, say, Sandy Alderson's or Frank Cashen's when they got their first GM appointments. Probably moreso. Sandy Alderson was hired in 1981. Frank Cashen in the 60's. We are living in a different world. A move can't be "innovative" if the parallels are from several decades ago. If your goal is sustained success, the candidate that best maximized our chances at achieving that is Chaim Bloom. Again, unless the Wilpons are privy to information that we don't know. But nothing presented to us backs that up. Nothing has been shown that this move is in, any way, "innovative". "Strange" yes. Innovative, no.

Well, there are several contemporary precedents of agents that have become team executives in baseball and other sports.

Beyond that, I disagree that a move can't be innovative if parallels are from several decades ago. The nature of innovation doesn't necessitate parallels at all. Beyond that, I don't accept the notion that this or any other hiring has to be justified as innovative to be correct.

[Guest 41Forever]

If your goal is sustained success, the candidate that best maximized our chances at achieving that is Chaim Bloom. Again, unless the Wilpons are privy to information that we don't know. But nothing presented to us backs that up.

I would think the Wilpons were privy to lots of information that we didn’t have access to, including two interviews.

We’re just going on what we know from his experience, what’s been reported and a short statement. They must have seen something that they liked better. Remember, these are traditionalists. To go outside the box they must have been blown away by something. I’d love for them to tell us today what it was.

[Ceetar]

41Forever wrote: They must have seen something that they liked better. Remember, these are traditionalists. To go outside the box they must have been blown away by something. I’d love for them to tell us today what it was.

And hopefully this is the last time we hear from them for a while.

[Lefty Specialist]

I wonder what other GM's are thinking. He's got clients scattered through baseball, and he probably knows things about their players that maybe they don't even know. Does so-and-so have a secret drug habit? Is someone closer to TJ surgery than they know? Does somebody beat their wife?

It's a strange place to be in. Will he cheap out on Jacob deGrom or sign him to a long extension? Many questions, few answers. Knowing the people he'll have to deal with, the Wilpons, will he truly have the authority and the money to remake this team? And if he doesn't, why would he want to take the job at all?

[Centerfield]

See, I think if you're playing odds, Bloom was far and away the candidate that maximized the probability of success. Ng, second, BVW third, and Melvin last. But again, that's based on the information I have, not what the Wilpons have.

I certainly hope that the Wilpons were presented something by BVW that gave him the edge. I would love to know what that is, but I understand that we may never know. Nor do I really care if he's successful. Maybe it will come out years later.

I hope that this wasn't a case of the two Wilpons being unable to agree, and compromising on BVW just so that neither guy got his man.

If I had to guess now, realizing that I am cynical and biased toward thinking the Wilpons are bumbling idiots, I would guess that it was Melvin all along. Bloom got a courtesy interview to make it seem like the Mets were open to analytics, and BVW was there just to round out the candidates. The response to Melvin was overwhelmingly negative, so they were stuck. Fred wasn't going to let Jeff get his nerd guy, so BVW it was.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Baseball's Weirdest Team Makes A Weird GM Hire, But Maybe A Smart One Too

Because of how much control the Wilpons exert over every decision that the team makes—the GM has in recent years been given no set budget, with ownership approving every personnel move on a case-by-case basis—the identity of the next GM mattered most as a reflection of how these grouchy Long Island weirdos were feeling.

As a top agent, Van Wagenen knows the state of play in the league and understands both player evaluation and valuation; CAA, like many big sports agencies, has an in-house analytics shop that almost certainly dwarfs the tiny team that the Wilpons grudgingly allowed to former GM Sandy Alderson in both size and sophistication. There’s not much that Van Wagenen will need to do as a GM that he hasn’t done at least a little bit of as an agent, although he’s more experienced in some areas than others.

Nothing much is likely to change as long as the Wilpons are in charge, and the owners are supremely dedicated to their particular brand of vinegary shortsightedness. But if Van Wagenen will have to do the same things that every GM has done under the Wilpons—convince Fred to do more to improve the team than signing some aw-shucks potato-shaped ex-slugger and then groaning anonymously to the Daily News—he at least has some relevant experience convincing this particular oldster on matters like this.

As Baseball Prospectus’s Jarrett Seidler wrote, there’s a great deal that’s damning about the fact that a baseball team venturing this far outside the box still winds up with a white dude named Brodie who played right field for Stanford. “[They] hired someone whose qualifications are so offbeat that it would’ve opened the door to hire a real change agent,” Seidler tweeted. “And instead they hired him because he’s chummy with the owner’s son.”

[Fman99]

"Vinegary shortsightedness" sounds like a new brand of douche. As opposed to the classic Wilpon scented/flavored kind.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: 41Forever wrote: They must have seen something that they liked better. Remember, these are traditionalists. To go outside the box they must have been blown away by something. I’d love for them to tell us today what it was. And hopefully this is the last time we hear from them for a while.

I'm in batmag's Camp Charlie Brown Football Kick.

Not expecting anything worthwhile from this afternoon's snorefest, unless
of course they want divulge why they passed on the likes of Ng and Bloom.

Assclowns.

[Ceetar]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: 41Forever wrote: They must have seen something that they liked better. Remember, these are traditionalists. To go outside the box they must have been blown away by something. I’d love for them to tell us today what it was. And hopefully this is the last time we hear from them for a while. I'm in batmag's Camp Charlie Brown Football Kick. Not expecting anything worthwhile from this afternoon's snorefest, unless of course they want divulge why they passed on the likes of Ng and Bloom. Assclowns.

At the very least we should get some of a feel of how Brodie operates/thinks. the basis of it anyway.

As much as I would've loved the Mets to find an up and coming minority or woman or other such underrepresented group and give them a chance, I think it's fairly misguided to criticize them for not being 'innovative enough'. This guy was one of the top 2 agents in the game. It's easy to say he played nice with Jeff, but he's at the top of the damn field legitimately. This isn't a "We need a trainer and know a trainer from Michigan and let's hire him" situation.

[Centerfield]

I'm not criticizing the Mets for "not being innovative enough". I don't need the Mets to be innovative. I just want them to be good.

Understand what I am saying.

Right now, the best teams in baseball have given us a blueprint on how to do it. Spending money, analytics, tear down rebuilds, there are ways to win. I am totally fine with the Mets following these paths to success. Hiring Chaim Bloom would have been a great first step towards that. Do what other successful clubs do.

The Mets chose not to do that. They went in a different direction. Advocates of this direction are calling it "innovative".

Is it? Innovative means that there is a new way of thinking. New ideas, new techniques. If this is the case, we haven't seen any of this yet. You can't call it innovative, until you see the new line of thinking.

Moneyball? Innovative. Advanced stats? Innovative.

"Fuck, I'm lost. Let's just hire the agent." NOT INNOVATIVE.

[Centerfield]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: As a top agent, Van Wagenen knows the state of play in the league and understands both player evaluation and valuation; CAA, like many big sports agencies, has an in-house analytics shop that almost certainly dwarfs the tiny team that the Wilpons grudgingly allowed to former GM Sandy Alderson in both size and sophistication. There’s not much that Van Wagenen will need to do as a GM that he hasn’t done at least a little bit of as an agent, although he’s more experienced in some areas than others.

This was very encouraging.

Maybe Fred didn't think Bloom was analytical enough! "Jeff, get me that agent guy, and tell him to bring his entire analytics department!"

[Fman99]

You can't spell analytics without "anal."

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: I'm not criticizing the Mets for "not being innovative enough". I don't need the Mets to be innovative. I just want them to be good. Understand what I am saying. Right now, the best teams in baseball have given us a blueprint on how to do it. Spending money, analytics, tear down rebuilds, there are ways to win. I am totally fine with the Mets following these paths to success. Hiring Chaim Bloom would have been a great first step towards that. Do what other successful clubs do. The Mets chose not to do that. They went in a different direction. Advocates of this direction are calling it "innovative". Is it? Innovative means that there is a new way of thinking. New ideas, new techniques. If this is the case, we haven't seen any of this yet. You can't call it innovative, until you see the new line of thinking. Moneyball? Innovative. Advanced stats? Innovative. "Fuck, I'm lost. Let's just hire the agent." NOT INNOVATIVE.

Not you, Roth/Deadspin, was criticizing them for that.

There's no blueprint for success because there are so many other factors all the way down the organization, all the way to, and this is the main bit, the players. What works in one place does not work in others, because you can't perfectly replicate things like your drafts working out the way theirs did, or the same players being both available and continuing to be as good. It's a volatile sport. Simple mimicry frequently fails because you often end up only mimicking the outer shell.

No, hiring Brodie is not 'innovative'. It's different, and the Mets have been starved for different.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: As much as I would've loved the Mets to find an up and coming minority or woman or other such underrepresented group and give them a chance, I think it's fairly misguided to criticize them for not .....

Fuck that. I could give a flying fuck about the ethnoracialsexualpreference of the GM. I want Theo Epstein but the catch-22 is that Theo Epstein is a brilliant GM who knows exactly what the fuck he's doing and any brilliant GM candidate who knows exactly what the fuck he's doing isn't going to work for the incompetent frauds and douchebags that own the Mets. Baseball exists today in an era where money never mattered more. Playing in a major market won't guarantee success (see, e.g., Mets, White Sox, Angels) because a team could easily squander its natural competitive advantages. But sustained success comes mainly from those large market teams that outspend everybody else, like the Dodgers, Yankees and Red Sox. A little Occam's Razor here, ferchrissakes sake.

Meanwhile, it's been reported that BVW wants to convince the Wilpons to spend more money. This is sure to make a certain Trump loving Mets ownership shilling poster's head explode because how the hell is he gonna pick a side when all he can write is to go along with every single harebrained idea the Mets brass thinks?

[A Boy Named Seo]

I have a hunch that Fred and Jeff, in a dickish Trumpian way, liked the idea that BVW might be armed with info on players that other GMs wouldn't have. I predict there will be some NYM FA signing that will be met with a grievance filed by another team or maybe the MLBPA on behalf of a player. Some wacky bullshit the league has never seen before cause we now have this conflicted dude running the show.

BTW - this fangraphs article is excellent and might make you look like a SMDH gif in real life. --> https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-mets-brodie-van-wagenen-and-when-agents-join-front-offices/

[seawolf17]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: any brilliant GM candidate who knows exactly what the fuck he's doing isn't going to work for the incompetent frauds and douchebags that own the Mets

This is what I keep coming back to. It seems like BVW is leaving a TON of money on the table by taking this job. Why do that?

[Edgy MD]

Seems like circular logic (or Catch-22 logic, at least) to suggest that the Mets hired the wrong guy which is demonstrable because he was hired by the Mets.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Seems like circular logic (or Catch-22 logic, at least) to suggest that the Mets hired the wrong guy which is demonstrable because he was hired by the Mets.

The horse was dead before they got here.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Seems like circular logic (or Catch-22 logic, at least) to suggest that the Mets hired the wrong guy which is demonstrable in that he was hired by the Mets.

rrxlfvI17oY

[Lefty Specialist]

seawolf17 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: any brilliant GM candidate who knows exactly what the fuck he's doing isn't going to work for the incompetent frauds and douchebags that own the Mets This is what I keep coming back to. It seems like BVW is leaving a TON of money on the table by taking this job. Why do that?

Yeah, that's my biggest question. Why do this at all? Most potential candidates scurried like cockroaches in bright light when the Wilpons came calling.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Guest

[Vic Sage]

No, hiring Brodie is not 'innovative'. It's different, and the Mets have been starved for different.

They are not starved for "different," they are starved for "good", or even "competent."
They got talked into buying a bottle of snake oil from a snake oil salesman. Excuse me if i don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Ceetar]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Yeah, that's my biggest question. Why do this at all? Most potential candidates scurried like cockroaches in bright light when the Wilpons came calling.

in fact, no one did.

it's a great job, one of thirty. Running a baseball team is something few people get to do. it's a power trip. etc. People like to switch jobs, try new things, etc. Why NOT do this, if possible?

I don't know his yearly income versus his new salary (4 years though!) but he's got a 2.2 million dollar house and is clearly already well off.

Vic Sage wrote: No, hiring Brodie is not 'innovative'. It's different, and the Mets have been starved for different. They are not starved for "different," they are starved for "good", or even "competent." They got talked into buying a bottle of snake oil from a snake oil salesman. Excuse me if i don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

yes, this is the circular logic thing. And the Mets have plenty of talented and competent people within the Mets, even if you think they're a standard deviation away from say Boston. Nor is there any evidence that Brodie has snake oil or is selling it. It's not bad just because the Mets did it.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure what makes him a snake oil salesman any more than any other prospective job seeker. If Jacob deGrom is snake oil, then rub me down with it.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It's just about showtime...

[A Boy Named Seo]

Presser on NOW!!!!