Best GMs in Baseball

[ToughGuy_BlueShirt]

I agree, especially with Schuerholz, yeah he only won one in Atlanta..that's one more than Beane.

That's some awful logic. Schuerholz has 1 title in 17 years as the Braves GM, Beane has only been around for 10 in Oakland. Never mind that Schuerholz doesn't have to compete with teams that can and do spend twice or three times as much as he's able to. Or the fact that WS titles aren't a very good barometer of a GM.

I can understand preferring someone like Schuerholz because he's got a longer track record. But to me the potential to do more with the gaps in their tenures is why I prefer Beane.

So, it's ok that I said Beinfest also? He won a World Series in his first four years, and definitely doesn't have the resources as some.

You didn't specify Beinfest, and no he doesn't have the most resources. He also hasn't been back to the playoffs or finished above 3rd in his division since the fluke run in '03. He's not in the same league as Beane.

I don't know if I'd call 03 a fluke they had a good team. (Is there some bitterness there? ) And I think if we're talking about small market GM and starting a team up from nowhere, he's one of the best.

[vinsanity]

Never mind that Schuerholz doesn't have to compete with teams that can and do spend twice or three times as much as he's able to. Or the fact that WS titles aren't a very good barometer of a GM.

Well what barometer do you wanna use? Can I really feel like Jocketty has Beane topped.
Lets see -
Oakland:
6 years with a losing record under Beane, two with 100+ wins, 4 Division Titles, 1 WC, 1- 5 in post-season series, 0 WS. If you want to go since 96 - it's basically just 3 losing seasons instead of 6.

Cardinals:
Since 96 -
2 Losing Seasons, 6 Div Titles, 1 WC, 2 seasons with 100+ wins (one with 105 which is more than any team Beane has had but ehh) 1 WS, 2 Pennants and 10 - 5 in post-season series.

I'd put WJ ahead of Beane, not that beane's bad...but I can't think of anything else to really judge by. Unless you want to do trades but that's 100% subjective (sure beane got us with Mulder, but we got them with McGwire)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Never mind that Schuerholz doesn't have to compete with teams that can and do spend twice or three times as much as he's able to. Or the fact that WS titles aren't a very good barometer of a GM.

Well what barometer do you wanna use? Can I really feel like Jocketty has Beane topped.
Lets see -
Oakland:
6 years with a losing record under Beane, two with 100+ wins, 4 Division Titles, 1 WC, 1- 5 in post-season series, 0 WS. If you want to go since 96 - it's basically just 3 losing seasons instead of 6.

Cardinals:
Since 96 -
2 Losing Seasons, 6 Div Titles, 1 WC, 2 seasons with 100+ wins (one with 105 which is more than any team Beane has had but ehh) 1 WS, 2 Pennants and 10 - 5 in post-season series.

I'd put WJ ahead of Beane, not that beane's bad...but I can't think of anything else to really judge by. Unless you want to do trades but that's 100% subjective (sure beane got us with Mulder, but we got them with McGwire)

Beane took over in 1997. He had 2 losing seasons getting things implemented, and since then has had 8 consecutive seasons with at least 87 wins, and 90 wins 5 of the last 6 seasons, winning the division 4 times. And he has a bottom 10 payroll in MLB. There's no one in baseball that can touch that type of consistency while having as little as Beane, save maybe the Twins.

[Popeye_Card]

Beane took over in 1997. He had 2 losing seasons getting things implemented, and since then has had 8 consecutive seasons with at least 87 wins, and 90 wins 5 of the last 6 seasons, winning the division 4 times. And he has a bottom 10 payroll in MLB. There's no one in baseball that can touch that type of consistency while having as little as Beane, save maybe the Twins.

So Beane is your guy if you want to do a lot with a little.

Schuerholz took over a Braves team that spent money in the 80's because of Turner, but couldn't win for the life of them. 6 straight years they had finished 5th or 6th in their division. They were consistently one of the worst-drawing teams in the league (worst in the league for the 3 years prior to his takeover).

Not only did he mold the team into a 14-time NL East winner (and 4 pennants and 1 World Series championship), but along with Turner's further funding, the Braves became not only a huge draw in Atlanta, but one of the most popular teams in the US.

Have the A's done this? No, they still struggle to draw fans and turn any sort of profit. Is that Beane's fault? Not really, but in no way is it a feather in his cap either. There's a sterility to the A's in his tenure that I think keeps fans from adopting and following the team.

So while you say that championships are a poor barometer of success, I would say that winning with a small payroll isn't the only barometer either. Beane is very good at what he does. But in my book, Schuerholtz has done it longer and in more ways, making him the better overall GM. JMO.

--P--

[JL21]

I agree, especially with Schuerholz, yeah he only won one in Atlanta..that's one more than Beane.

That's some awful logic. Schuerholz has 1 title in 17 years as the Braves GM, Beane has only been around for 10 in Oakland. Never mind that Schuerholz doesn't have to compete with teams that can and do spend twice or three times as much as he's able to. Or the fact that WS titles aren't a very good barometer of a GM.

I can understand preferring someone like Schuerholz because he's got a longer track record. But to me the potential to do more with the gaps in their tenures is why I prefer Beane.

You do realize that Schuerholz did, in Kansas City, what Beane is doing now in Oakland, right? And THEN went to Atlanta? Schuerholz was Beane before Beane was.

[JL21]

How much credit do you give to Schuerholz for keeping the dominant pitching together for so many years? To me, the credit for this could be given just as much to Bobby Cox as it could to him. It's a known fact that players love to play for this guy. To me, he had a lot to do with keeping those teams assembled, just as much as Schuerholz IMO.

It's about knowing which players to build your core around and which not to. GM's should also get credit for the player development and coaching team they put together.

And knowing which of your free agents to break the bank on (Maddux) and which ones are expendable (David Justice, Ron Gant, etc...).

[JL21]

I don't know if I'd call 03 a fluke they had a good team. (Is there some bitterness there? ) And I think if we're talking about small market GM and starting a team up from nowhere, he's one of the best.

2003 was something of a fluke. He got huge contributions from players that had never given them before, or hadn't recently given them (Pudge, Juan Pierre, Carl Pavano, just to name a few).

But more importantly, the core of that team had nothing to do with Beinfest. Dave Dombrowski built the core of that team before leaving after the 2002 season. Beinfest doesn't deserve a lot of credit for that 2003 championship. If you want to fawn over the young talent amassed by the Marlins, you can thank Dave Dombrowski for that. Cabrera, Willis, Beckett, Derrek Lee, Luis Castillo, Alex Gonzalez, Mike Lowell, Pavano, Penny.... ALL Dombrowski acquisitions. Though Willis was acquired just one month after Dombrowski left, I'd say that his staff laid the groundwork for the deal.

Beinfest is nothing without Dave Dombrowski's players. Beinfest didn't start up a team from nowhere. He took over a team with TONS of talent in the cupboard. Most GM's would love to have the starting point that Beinfest had.

[mcgee51taguchi99]

Shouldn't team performance be just a part of the equation? It's easy to throw postseason series W-L, number of championships, etc around but ultimately it's the GMs job to build a steady winner.

Getting the team to the playoffs on a consistent basis without wrecking the team long term (to me) is the mark of a great GM.

Using the criteria mentioned above Jocketty and Beane are as close to equals and they come. I realize a statement like that might irritate some, especially given the general disdain for Beane, but they both work wonders with the resources given to them. Beane's lack of a title or postseason success does not take away from what he does on a yearly basis.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Beane took over in 1997. He had 2 losing seasons getting things implemented, and since then has had 8 consecutive seasons with at least 87 wins, and 90 wins 5 of the last 6 seasons, winning the division 4 times. And he has a bottom 10 payroll in MLB. There's no one in baseball that can touch that type of consistency while having as little as Beane, save maybe the Twins.

So Beane is your guy if you want to do a lot with a little.

Schuerholz took over a Braves team that spent money in the 80's because of Turner, but couldn't win for the life of them. 6 straight years they had finished 5th or 6th in their division. They were consistently one of the worst-drawing teams in the league (worst in the league for the 3 years prior to his takeover).

Not only did he mold the team into a 14-time NL East winner (and 4 pennants and 1 World Series championship), but along with Turner's further funding, the Braves became not only a huge draw in Atlanta, but one of the most popular teams in the US.

Have the A's done this? No, they still struggle to draw fans and turn any sort of profit. Is that Beane's fault? Not really, but in no way is it a feather in his cap either. There's a sterility to the A's in his tenure that I think keeps fans from adopting and following the team.

So while you say that championships are a poor barometer of success, I would say that winning with a small payroll isn't the only barometer either. Beane is very good at what he does. But in my book, Schuerholtz has done it longer and in more ways, making him the better overall GM. JMO.

--P--

Not including Schuerholz in my previous post was a terrible oversight, I mentioned him previously in the thread.

My point about winning v. payroll is gauging level of difficulty. I'm not saying a GM with a high payroll has no chance of being considered better than Beane or Ryan, but you have to consider the handicaps each team has to deal with. What Beane has done in Oakland is impressive even before you consider that he's got no resources to deal with.

As far as the fan support goes, I don't agree. The Superstation has much more to do with the Braves national following than anything else(see: the Cubs having a national fan base without much success), although the consistent winning definitely helps. I don't buy the "sterility" of the environment with Beane, and even then I'd say that they wouldn't be doing much winning without what he's brought, and the fan support would be even worse.

[mcgee51taguchi99]

Walt ranks at 47 on the list, just two spots ahead of the legendary GM Kiki Vandeweghe?