Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd ranked 29th best GM

77smbg9177 · 02-08-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:
29. Dan O'Dowd, Rockies
On the job since … September 1999
Playoff appearances: 0

One of the modern world's great mysteries is how O'Dowd is still employed as a Major League GM. He discards prevailing strategies like used tissue, and the farm system has churned out precious little on his watch. He's the guy who gave Mike Hampton the 15th-largest contract in sports history and signed Todd Helton through 2011. ‘Nuff said.

FOX Sports - MLB - Schuerholz tops list of general managers

I might have to agree here. . . what does everyone else think?

RockieRooter · 02-08-2007, 08:24 PM

I don't want to comment on DO'Ds abilities, but I can't stand by and watch the statement that "the farm system has churned out precious little on his watch" go by when many publications rank the Rox farm system second best in the majors. If you ding DO'D for the failings of the Rox over the past four or five years, then IMHO you have to give him props for this.

Heltonfan · 02-08-2007, 08:32 PM

Agreed, RockieRooter. And of course, there's also the little matter of the Hampton/Neagle/Helton spending binge being largely ownership-driven.

I put together my own GM rankings a couple weeks ago, and wound up ranking O'Dowd 19th. He's made too many bad deals (and non-deals; a smarter GM would have dumped guys like Chacon and Stark while they still had value) to rank in the top half of the league, but there's no way that he belongs in the bottom 5. The guys at that level have absolutely no clue how to evaluate talent. O'Dowd isn't nearly that clueless.

Roxpert · 02-08-2007, 08:59 PM

I agree with RR and Heltonfan. Those types of rankings are largely influenced by the TEAM'S success, or lack thereof, and are poorly researched lists. Obviously, the comment doesn't reflect the recent success of the farm system and some of the "Gen R" players that have come from it.

Having said that, I have lost my esteem for DOD in the past 18 months, and find him to be disingenuous when he speaks for attribution. As Jackass points out, his claim that we had "no roster space" to make a move last July was as poor and weak an excuse as he could have conjured up, and he knows it.

I also wonder if DOD learned to "pray" with Charlie, Keli, and Clint on conference calls as a form of "job insurance". It wouldnt' surprise me.

BigRapidsJackass · 02-08-2007, 10:22 PM

Heltonfan, don't keep us in suspense ... who are your Top 5 and Bottom 5 GMs?

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say the Top 5 (in no particular order) are Beane, Towers, Byrnes, Ryan, Schuerholz (I think I cheated Jocketty, Stoneman and Beinfest here, but there's only room for 5.)

Bottom 5? Hendry, Bavasi (he's still in charge in Seattle I think?), Flanagan & Co., Purpura ... and I can't think of anyone else in their class. I didn't forget about Sabean and Colletti. Sabean because even if the Giants tank, 8 winning seasons in a row ain't bad. Colletti because he has so far resisted the temptation to sell all his young talent.

hiaspire · 02-08-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

Agreed, RockieRooter. And of course, there's also the little matter of the Hampton/Neagle/Helton spending binge being largely ownership-driven.

What a lame excuse. I've shown repeated articles from the past of DOD and his research and statements into why these guys were the players he specifically wanted. Certainly they were all in it together (like ANY large free agent contract for ANY team), but to try to reduce DOD's role in it is inexcusable. That's certainly not how he acted at the time. He wasn't preaching financial responsibility, he was wheelin and dealin and making history as far as he was concerned as the new hot shot on the block.

BigRapidsJackass · 02-08-2007, 10:28 PM

Aspire, let's not hijack this thread into that tired old debate.

Suffice to say I agree with you in general. If Mike Flanagan takes the blame for the Orioles' questionable moves (many of which we suspect were made in response to an order from Peter Angelos), then O'Dowd shouldn't escape criticism for his follies. Part of being a GM is knowing how to convince your owners that their plan is a bad one.

hiaspire · 02-08-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Part of being a GM is knowing how to convince your owners that their plan is a bad one.

Yeah, but you can't do that if you actually AGREE with the plan and are actually making the recommendations with loads of statistical supporting data. It's nothing like DOD knew it was a bad idea and just didn't speak up. Nothing could be further from the truth. He spoke up plenty and was right up there leading the bandwagon off the cliff. And I was cheering for it too. A lot of people were excited about their history-making moves. But that doesn't mean it should be stricken from his evaluation or modified somehow to make it look better. Every owner in sports is right there with their GM if a huge financial move is made. Not different here in that respect to that event.

Heltonfan · 02-08-2007, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Heltonfan, don't keep us in suspense ... who are your Top 5 and Bottom 5 GMs?

You guessed pretty well; you got three of the top five, and four of the bottom five.

Top 5: Towers, Beane, Byrnes, Shapiro, Epstein.

Jocketty and Schuerholz miss out because I'm trying to evaluate how good they are now, not rank their whole careers, and both have done some really stupid stuff in recent years. Jocketty managed to screw up not only in acquiring Mulder in the first place, but then in re-signing him this winter; he's also shown a Purpura-like resistance to finding a catcher who can at least hit his weight. Schuerholz gets docked for a) deciding not to bother attempting to assemble a bullpen last year, and b) this winter's nonsense, spending $6 million on Bob Wickman and then non-tendering Giles because of the budget restrictions. Both Jocketty and Schuerholz are very good deal-makers, but their talent evaluation skills aren't good enough for a top 5 ranking.

Terry Ryan barely made my top 10. Aside from the Pierzynski trade, he really hasn't made any impressive major league transactions, and he's made some truly awful decisions. Exhibit A: beginning the '06 season with a left side of the infield consisting of Juan Castro and Tony Batista. When a GM shows such a poor understanding of major league talent, I'm inclined to think that he doesn't deserve too much of the credit for the team's great farm system (certainly, we know that they delegate; that's why every team has a director of player development, or some equivalent position, in addition to the GM).

Stoneman is like Ryan, but even dumber at the major league level. There's no excuse for a team with a top-5 payroll and a top-5 farm system not to be dominant. But when you're paying eight figures a year to the likes of Garret Anderson, such things happen. I had him ranked #20 overall, just behind O'Dowd; his only discernible skill is an ability to cobble together good bullpens on the cheap. It's pretty clear that he has no idea how runs are created.

Bottom 5: Purpura, Krivsky, Bavasi, Flanagan, Hendry.

I should also add: generally speaking, I'm judging on expected results of transactions rather than actual results. I'll give some extra credit to a GM for a deal that turns out better than it "should have," since in theory, such things ought to reflect that they know more than we do about the players involved, but I don't dock them for deals that look good at the time and end up backfiring. So, for instance, I don't view the Beckett trade as a black mark on Epstein's record. It looked like (and was) a great deal for the '06 Red Sox, and no one in their right mind would have expected Hanley and Anibal to develop anywhere near as quickly as they did. This is purely a philosophical preference, of course, but I think the reasoning behind it is pretty compelling, and it sure makes the list (and list-making process) much more interesting than it would be if I used overall team success as the primary criterion.

hiaspire · 02-08-2007, 11:52 PM

When evaluating the GM and his prospect talent base, you also have to place it within the context of their draft positions. The Braves win division after division and don't end up with top 10 picks, yet manage to put together a very strong young next generation of talent. I don't give the D-Rays a ton of credit for their stocked farm system when they are always in the top 5.

I think DOD certainly deserves a little more credit than he's given there for the farm system, but you also have to temper that with the understanding that a horrible MLB decline and higher draft positions also had a lot to do with the talent infusion. He bears a great deal of responsibility for the bad baseball that leads to high picks - more blame than credit for that I think.

sg8335aa · 02-09-2007, 06:58 AM

Yes, the draft position helps HiAspire......however you're also forgetting the fact that the Rockies International Presence before O'Dowd was practically nothing.

Under his watch, he's built a strong presence in the Dominican, Venezuela and the Pacific Rim. By my count there were 12-13 International prospects on this year's Rockies Top 30. Our system would never have been as deep as it is without our presense in the International Market.

Take away: Morales, Jimenez, Morillo, Gomez, Lindsay, Lo, Corpas, Herrera, Deduno, Anuery Rodriguez, Colina and Strop......what do you have left? A very mediocre system.

Yes, high draft position gave us prospects like Tulo, Nelson, Francis, Stewart and *gasp* Reynolds.........however, the whole Gen-R movement has come from guys selected in the mid-rounds where draft position doesn't matter: Baker, Barmes, Holliday (yes I know he wasn't an O'Dowd pick), Hawpe, Atkins.....not to mention prospects like: Fowler, Ianetta, Koshansky, Roe, Hynick, Wimberly, EY Jr, Matt Miller.....etc....

I don't buy your "we only have a strong farm system because of our high-draft position" arguement. Take away Stewart and Tulo and replace them with mid-1st round talent and while we may drop a few notches, I still think we're a top 5 farm system (but closer to 4th/5th)

hiaspire · 02-09-2007, 08:07 AM

I'm not forgetting it, as I wrote a lot about that specifically at the time. I was once a big DOD fan, as perhaps people forget. It is a fair point you make.

That isn't just DOD alone either, though. The owners themselves (specifically the hated Charlie Monfort) went hard after Tsao as a big international signee. They certainly realized they needed to improve in that area and were taking steps themselves even before a new GM in place. That was part of the hiring criteria even as they searched for a new direction. And it certainly took a big financial investment for them to get back up to speed in other lands. DOD didn't scout those players himself by hitching a ride down south on his own. It also took the involvement of ownership to drastically improve their financial commitment to those areas.

As I did at the time, I will give DOD credit for organizing and championing that cause. We can't pat him on the back for that, though, and spit at the owners for the same issue. They were a big (perhaps bigger because it did take a lot of investment) part of that also.

I don't think we'd be mediocre without the Latin players, though. Outside of Morales, the ones we are counting on the most are Tulo and Stewart, along with MLB contributors from the draft like Atkins and Iannetta and Hawpe and Francis, etc. Those are the real potential difference-makers. That is where the biggest impact will come from individually. And it doesn't just effect the first round. Your 2nd round pick is closer to being like a 1st rounder if it is near the top of that round. Your 3rd rounder includes a better pool of guys who are legit 2nd round talents if you are picking near the top of that round instead of the bottom. You can get more guys that slip through the cracks before other teams scoop them up if you pick earlier.

Most of the core of the current GenR isn't international, and that's hardly mediocre. But I will agree with some of what you say as I have before.

BigRapidsJackass · 02-09-2007, 11:12 PM

I'm not so sure about Epstein.

Yeah, the Beckett trade is one I think every contending team would've made.

But I wonder about things like the Mirabelli fiasco (not that I expect Cla Meredith to have anything like his '06 year), the Wily Mo Pena-Arroyo deal, the strange inability to settle on a shortstop, and now (if the Helton rumors are to be believed) a kind of overreaction to giving up guys like Hanley/Anibal by overvaluing guys like Ellsbury and Hansen.

Remember, the Rockies would be pretty good if they multiplied their budget by a factor of 2.5. JD Drew would be in CF next year, Matsuzaka would be the ace, and O'Dowd would have about $40 million left over to play with ...

02-08-2007, 07:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
77smbg9177 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: NEW YORK Posts: 670	Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd ranked 29th best GM Quote: 29. Dan O'Dowd, Rockies On the job since … September 1999 Playoff appearances: 0 One of the modern world's great mysteries is how O'Dowd is still employed as a Major League GM. He discards prevailing strategies like used tissue, and the farm system has churned out precious little on his watch. He's the guy who gave Mike Hampton the 15th-largest contract in sports history and signed Todd Helton through 2011. ‘Nuff said. FOX Sports - MLB - Schuerholz tops list of general managers I might have to agree here. . . what does everyone else think? __________________ METS 07 WS CHAMPS i like how that just rolls of the tongue cant wait until that comes true

02-08-2007, 08:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 855	Agreed, RockieRooter. And of course, there's also the little matter of the Hampton/Neagle/Helton spending binge being largely ownership-driven. I put together my own GM rankings a couple weeks ago, and wound up ranking O'Dowd 19th. He's made too many bad deals (and non-deals; a smarter GM would have dumped guys like Chacon and Stark while they still had value) to rank in the top half of the league, but there's no way that he belongs in the bottom 5. The guys at that level have absolutely no clue how to evaluate talent. O'Dowd isn't nearly that clueless. Last edited by Heltonfan; 02-09-2007 at 09:35 AM.

02-08-2007, 11:52 PM	#10 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 479	When evaluating the GM and his prospect talent base, you also have to place it within the context of their draft positions. The Braves win division after division and don't end up with top 10 picks, yet manage to put together a very strong young next generation of talent. I don't give the D-Rays a ton of credit for their stocked farm system when they are always in the top 5. I think DOD certainly deserves a little more credit than he's given there for the farm system, but you also have to temper that with the understanding that a horrible MLB decline and higher draft positions also had a lot to do with the talent infusion. He bears a great deal of responsibility for the bad baseball that leads to high picks - more blame than credit for that I think. Last edited by hiaspire; 02-09-2007 at 12:04 AM.

02-09-2007, 06:58 AM	#11 (permalink)
sg8335aa Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 118	Hiaspire Yes, the draft position helps HiAspire......however you're also forgetting the fact that the Rockies International Presence before O'Dowd was practically nothing. Under his watch, he's built a strong presence in the Dominican, Venezuela and the Pacific Rim. By my count there were 12-13 International prospects on this year's Rockies Top 30. Our system would never have been as deep as it is without our presense in the International Market. Take away: Morales, Jimenez, Morillo, Gomez, Lindsay, Lo, Corpas, Herrera, Deduno, Anuery Rodriguez, Colina and Strop......what do you have left? A very mediocre system. Yes, high draft position gave us prospects like Tulo, Nelson, Francis, Stewart and gasp Reynolds.........however, the whole Gen-R movement has come from guys selected in the mid-rounds where draft position doesn't matter: Baker, Barmes, Holliday (yes I know he wasn't an O'Dowd pick), Hawpe, Atkins.....not to mention prospects like: Fowler, Ianetta, Koshansky, Roe, Hynick, Wimberly, EY Jr, Matt Miller.....etc.... I don't buy your "we only have a strong farm system because of our high-draft position" arguement. Take away Stewart and Tulo and replace them with mid-1st round talent and while we may drop a few notches, I still think we're a top 5 farm system (but closer to 4th/5th)

02-09-2007, 08:07 AM	#12 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 479	I'm not forgetting it, as I wrote a lot about that specifically at the time. I was once a big DOD fan, as perhaps people forget. It is a fair point you make. That isn't just DOD alone either, though. The owners themselves (specifically the hated Charlie Monfort) went hard after Tsao as a big international signee. They certainly realized they needed to improve in that area and were taking steps themselves even before a new GM in place. That was part of the hiring criteria even as they searched for a new direction. And it certainly took a big financial investment for them to get back up to speed in other lands. DOD didn't scout those players himself by hitching a ride down south on his own. It also took the involvement of ownership to drastically improve their financial commitment to those areas. As I did at the time, I will give DOD credit for organizing and championing that cause. We can't pat him on the back for that, though, and spit at the owners for the same issue. They were a big (perhaps bigger because it did take a lot of investment) part of that also. I don't think we'd be mediocre without the Latin players, though. Outside of Morales, the ones we are counting on the most are Tulo and Stewart, along with MLB contributors from the draft like Atkins and Iannetta and Hawpe and Francis, etc. Those are the real potential difference-makers. That is where the biggest impact will come from individually. And it doesn't just effect the first round. Your 2nd round pick is closer to being like a 1st rounder if it is near the top of that round. Your 3rd rounder includes a better pool of guys who are legit 2nd round talents if you are picking near the top of that round instead of the bottom. You can get more guys that slip through the cracks before other teams scoop them up if you pick earlier. Most of the core of the current GenR isn't international, and that's hardly mediocre. But I will agree with some of what you say as I have before. Last edited by hiaspire; 02-09-2007 at 08:32 AM.

02-08-2007, 08:24 PM	#2 (permalink)
RockieRooter Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 62	I don't want to comment on DO'Ds abilities, but I can't stand by and watch the statement that "the farm system has churned out precious little on his watch" go by when many publications rank the Rox farm system second best in the majors. If you ding DO'D for the failings of the Rox over the past four or five years, then IMHO you have to give him props for this.

02-08-2007, 08:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,059	I agree with RR and Heltonfan. Those types of rankings are largely influenced by the TEAM'S success, or lack thereof, and are poorly researched lists. Obviously, the comment doesn't reflect the recent success of the farm system and some of the "Gen R" players that have come from it. Having said that, I have lost my esteem for DOD in the past 18 months, and find him to be disingenuous when he speaks for attribution. As Jackass points out, his claim that we had "no roster space" to make a move last July was as poor and weak an excuse as he could have conjured up, and he knows it. I also wonder if DOD learned to "pray" with Charlie, Keli, and Clint on conference calls as a form of "job insurance". It wouldnt' surprise me.

02-08-2007, 10:22 PM	#5 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,146	Heltonfan, don't keep us in suspense ... who are your Top 5 and Bottom 5 GMs? Off the top of my head, I'd have to say the Top 5 (in no particular order) are Beane, Towers, Byrnes, Ryan, Schuerholz (I think I cheated Jocketty, Stoneman and Beinfest here, but there's only room for 5.) Bottom 5? Hendry, Bavasi (he's still in charge in Seattle I think?), Flanagan & Co., Purpura ... and I can't think of anyone else in their class. I didn't forget about Sabean and Colletti. Sabean because even if the Giants tank, 8 winning seasons in a row ain't bad. Colletti because he has so far resisted the temptation to sell all his young talent.

02-08-2007, 10:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,146	Aspire, let's not hijack this thread into that tired old debate. Suffice to say I agree with you in general. If Mike Flanagan takes the blame for the Orioles' questionable moves (many of which we suspect were made in response to an order from Peter Angelos), then O'Dowd shouldn't escape criticism for his follies. Part of being a GM is knowing how to convince your owners that their plan is a bad one.

02-09-2007, 11:12 PM	#13 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,146	I'm not so sure about Epstein. Yeah, the Beckett trade is one I think every contending team would've made. But I wonder about things like the Mirabelli fiasco (not that I expect Cla Meredith to have anything like his '06 year), the Wily Mo Pena-Arroyo deal, the strange inability to settle on a shortstop, and now (if the Helton rumors are to be believed) a kind of overreaction to giving up guys like Hanley/Anibal by overvaluing guys like Ellsbury and Hansen. Remember, the Rockies would be pretty good if they multiplied their budget by a factor of 2.5. JD Drew would be in CF next year, Matsuzaka would be the ace, and O'Dowd would have about $40 million left over to play with ...