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.

And though I didn't want Ng to get this job because I thought it would be bad for her in the long run, it is worth noting... Hi. I'm Kim Ng. I'm an Asian American woman, and I've been working in baseball for 27 years. I was the assistant General Manager to Brian Cashman during the Yankee Dynasty of the late 90's. Afterwards I served as the Vice President and Assistant General Manager of the Dodgers for ten years. For the last 7 years, I have been serving as Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations for Major League Baseball. I'm widely regarded as one of the best minds in the game. See, I don't know if you're second interview material. Hi! I'm Brodie Van Wagenen. I'm a white guy with no relevant experience. But check out how straight my teeth are! You're crushin' it Bro, CRUSHIN IT. When can you start? (Admins, feel free to re-size the pictures. Sorry, that's a lot of Jeff in this last one)

I don't think Buster Olney, or any other informed critic, will be swayed by any talk from BVW. The criticism isn't that he can't talk. We already know he can do that. The criticism is whether he knows how to do anything else but talk. And for that, only time will tell. I am not as pessimistic as Buster, but his points are valid. The Mets are looking to build a team with (presumably) a limited budget. Chaim Bloom has demonstrated himself to be a terrific candidate, having done exactly that in Tampa. He is highly regarded throughout the league. He was, unquestionably, the best candidate for the job. The choice of Van Wagenen is, as Olney states, bizarre. There is no good reason that has been presented to explain why the Mets went in this direction. He has never worked for a team, much less run one. He has no relevant experience, and therefore, he's a wild card. He can be amazing, a disaster, or anything in between, and all of those outcomes equally as likely to transpire. Why go this route when there is a terrific candidate with a high probability of success sitting in the other chair? If this blows up, this is an unforced error. The words used to praise the move are along the lines of "innovative" and "outside the box". Without explanation, these are just words. Hiring a squirrel would also be innovative and outside the box. That doesn't make it a good idea. Something is innovative if there is sound logic and sense behind it. If this were five years ago, and the Wilpons said: "We're hiring Chaim Bloom. He's 30 years old, and has limited experience in baseball, but he's well versed in something called "advanced stats". It tracks things like spin rate on pitches, and exit velocity on balls hit, and it's supposedly a great tool for measuring the skills of a ballplayer. We know it's unconventional, but we're going to give it a try." This is innovative. Hiring someone unconventional because they have a new, specific skill set that you think will be successful in your industry is innovative. Nothing like this was offered to explain the unorthodox decision to hire Van Wagenen. "Brodie is an extremely knowledgeable, creative, progressive and collaborative leader, who I'm confident will lead us toward sustainable success," Mets COO Jeff Wilpon said. "Brodie showed us he is a progressive thinker, who is prepared for this role and has great baseball acumen," Mets Chairman of the Board & CEO Fred Wilpon said. There is no specific skill set here. These words can be used to describe literally any candidate. Look, I don't think we'll get the answer to this question today. I don't if we'll ever get that answer. But for anyone praising this move, I'd love to know the logic behind that statement. Not pretty sounding words, actual logic.

I saw that! Nice to know Jeff and I are on the same wavelength.

Funny that Fred is the one that uses the word “analytics”. I wonder if it ended up being simply that BVW was the compromise. Fred wanted Melvin. Jeff wanted Chaim. So Brodie it is!

Vic Sage wrote: I deal with agents every day. Their only common denominator is that they are required to be able to know where and what the market is, and what is the value of their product in that market. Then tell a story that sells their client into that market for the best deal possible. They are salesman, plain and simple. So the only thing I know for sure about the Bro-meister is that, as one of the preeminent sports agents around, he is able to talk people into buying his wares. He was certainly successful at it getting the Wilpons to buy. Whether or not the wares he's selling are any good is unknowable at this point. Centerfield wrote: I think that it means that Brodie Van Wagenen is a terrific salesman. That he's great at making his clients appear to be worth more than they are. That he talks a good game and is adept at painting his clients in the best possible light. Holy crap. I just figured out why the Wilpons hired him. I just want to be clear that before Vic and I have been in the same room (stadium anyway) way back when. And that we are not the same person.

bmfc1 wrote: Centerfield wrote: It's 2018. Can we let this phrase die? I was merely thinking of the song by The Vapors. I was not aware of any other meanings or interpretations. However, I have modified this thread title. Cool. Thanks bmfc! The song meaning (depending on who you listen to) has been linked with equating masturbation faces with Asian facial features. Plus if anything has that "oriental" riff, you can assume that a lot of us hate it. Basically if you grew up Asian American, the holy triumvirate of "Songs I can do Without" are Turning Japanese, Kung Fu Fighting, and China Girl. And I know that the last one was meant as a satire to racism, but that irony was lost on most of the population.

Ceetar wrote: the ONLY factor that people are complaining about (granted, because we don't know) is "Hasn't been in a front office" Big freaking whoop. There's no chance that's more than a negligible handicap and at worst that handicap lasts a year. It's not the only factor. Conflicts of interests, familiarity with scouting, analytics etc. But certainly the main factor. I mean, relevant experience is kind of a big factor for any job no? Cuz if it isn't, I was totally available.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I saw that Buster Olney predicted that this would be a disaster. I'm tend to be skeptical of both extreme optimism and extreme pessimism. I do look forward to Van Wagenen's press conference. I don't know that he'll say much of substance, but at this point, any clues regarding his approach will give us more than we have now, which is essentially nothing. I'm in this camp. Van Wagenen is a complete wild card. I don't see how anyone can speak with any certainty how this will play out. I don't like the move because I don't think they chose the best option. But it could very well work out. We'll see. So many variables. Is Van Wagenen any good? Will the Wilpons meddle or butt out? Will he have an increased budget?

It's 2018. Can we let this phrase die?

So everyone knows it's Boston's 4th title in 15 years. But that's not all. In those 15 years, the Red Sox have: *12 winning seasons *10 seasons of 90 wins or more *5 Division Titles *9 Playoff appearances *the aforementioned 4 World Series Championships The Dodgers are not bad either. *13 winning seasons *8 seasons of 90 wins or more *9 Division Titles *10 Playoff appearances *2 National League Championships Sustained success.

And I know this is super-hokey, but I absolutely positively loved this.

And now the 4 year old Red Sox fan who wondered if they would ever win one in his lifetime can die in peace. I was texting with my Sox fan buddy last night. He was telling me how he was surprisingly relaxed watching last night. I said it's easy when your team is up 3-1. It then occurred to me, I'm 43 years old. During my lifetime, the Mets have never held a series lead in the World Series. In '86, they never led. (I don't think winning counts as leading)

Anyway, so how do you say his name? Is it Van Wagenen as in "Wagon-In"? Like I'm on the Brodie Band Wagon-in? Or Van Wagenen as in "wage-uh-nin?" Like Brodie Minimum Wage-uh-nin?

Congratulations Red Sox. An epic season. And thus the Van Wagenen era begins.

David Price and the Red Sox bullpen dominating. Just like we all predicted. Once upon a time the Yankees had Mystique and Aura. The Red Sox are doing it with smarts and money. Rich nerds > Strippers.

I’m with you Greg. Whatever it takes to stretch the season. I’ll root for LA tonight so the series can go back to Boston.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe Bloom's plan was to tear it all down and suck for the next three years. If he felt strongly that that was the way to go, then I don't think I'd hire him either. The reports are that all finalists were on board to compete in 2019. The ones who did not feel that were not considered.

Did the players association raise any objection when the Diamondbacks hired Dave Stewart? I don’t know if they did but they should be consistent. I would be curious to know how deGrom, Noah et al feel about this. Do they like this or do they feel betrayed? I wonder if they stay with Van Wagenen’s old company or if they jump ship.

I do not believe for a second that the Mets are about to do mega deals with mega players.

Mex17 wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I work in restaurant kitchens. If we have an ace server or well-regarded sommelier who seems to have a gift for flavor and a talent for cooking, he/she might be given a shot on the line, walking before he can run. He/she's NOT getting made a sous chef, much less exec chef, in charge of the entire back-of-house operation, even if he/she is a precocious learner, and is universally well regarded, and has made their way to the top of the heap in their neck of the restaurant's org chart. There are things he/she must learn-- or prove he/she knows-- firsthand before the mantle of leadership is entrusted to him/her. That's just how it's done in a professional organization. I mean, it's great that we've got a guy with the tools to do the job. But the ashheap of can't-miss-prospects-who-missed is full of toolsy guys' figurative remains, innit? I mean, just because you have a talented guy who wants to make a career left turn interested in your job-- however translatable his skill set may be-- doesn't mean he merits the top job in your organization, does it? (At least not over a younger, similarly-talented guy who's, y'know, DONE the job.) I think that you are underestimating what "Co-head of the baseball division at CAA Sports" means. For once, I might be in alignment with Frayed Knot here. I think that it means that Brodie Van Wagenen is a terrific salesman. That he's great at making his clients appear to be worth more than they are. That he talks a good game and is adept at painting his clients in the best possible light. Holy crap. I just figured out why the Wilpons hired him.

As for why this move is disappointing, this GM search comes down to the same basic principle as everything else discussed on this, or any other, fan board. Does this move maximize my chances for success? We know that nothing guarantees success. In this post season, we saw a number of teams that did everything right. Many won 100+ games, and in the end, only one team gets to lift the trophy. But those teams will continue to make all the right moves and continue to try to put themselves in a situation, where if they get a few bounces, they take home the prize. Why do I focus so much on budget? Because it's beyond dispute that resources maximize a team's chances at success. Choosing not to spend is foolish. Being unable to spend is incompetent, and warrants replacement. Why do we focus on analytics? Because this is just a fancy way of saying "information". The more information you have, the better your chances of making the right decision. Should we bring in Jay Bruce? Or give Nimmo more starts? The analytics guys were on this before Nimmo broke out this year. I don't care so much about the size of the analytics department, though if Sandy Alderson says he needs more guys, get him more fucking guys. But do we listen to them? Do we utilize them? Like budget, the effectiveness of using analytics is proven. So why the fuck would we not take this advantage? And so why is this GM decision disappointing? Because it does not appear that the Wilpons made the choice that best maximizes our chances for success. We are looking for a GM that can build a winning team on (presumably) a limited budget. A guy who can utilize the modern data and turn that into wins on the field. If that is our goal, there was one candidate that was head and shoulders above the others. And that guy was ready to take our job, but we deliberately decided to go in a different direction. I mean, Melvin was clearly the wrong guy. Everyone could see that. But Brodie? I don't know. He might be. But why would we take that risk? Why wouldn't we take the guy who just finished doing in Tampa exactly what we want him to do here? Now, it's possible that the Wilpons are privy to information we don't have. That they are geniuses with an ace up their sleeve, and someday we'll look back and be like, wow, those Wilpons are fucking savvy. But do you really think so? Last year, their "outside the box" move was Mickey Calloway. "We're hiring a pitching coach for a manager! Our new guy is so smart, so smart, have you met our smart new manager?" How did that work out? It wasn't the disaster it appeared to be early in the season, but at best, Mickey Calloway was just ok. If he's back this year, whatever. If he's not, I don't really care. But we didn't really have great options last season. Alex Cora preferred another job, and Brad Ausmus wasn't interested. So we did what we could. This year, we have a star GM prospect sitting at our table. And we go with an agent? Look, if you make that move, you better fucking know what you're doing. And I don't believe the Wilpons have earned any benefit of the doubt.

Serious question. Do agents really scout and analyze? Teams have to do it because they have limited resources and limited spots. An agent has no limit to how many clients they can have. Do they really need to discern which of the five shortstop prospects to take? Or do they market to all five? And yes I understand that even with a whole department like BVW ran there are limited hours, but do you prioritize the time on who you think is the best? Or who you think is the most receptive to a relationship?

Who does the analytics?