Rate Alex Anthopoulos' performance as GM

[torontoaces04]

He's been on the job for almost 3 years now. There have been a lot of positives changes since Anthopoulos took over, but his stint has been riddled with frustration from the fan base. I don't think there can be any arguing that Alex Anthopoulos himself is a PR nightmare, but it also can't be argued that the Blue Jays are in a better position today, than when AA took over nearly 3 years ago.

So it needs to be asked; Nearly three years into the job, rate AA's performance as our General Manager.

[Wally West]

I gave him a 9. Ever since he took over 3 years ago, he's done nothing but an amazing job trying to turn this franchise around building through the draft and finding young controllable talent who were either being misused by their former franchises or weren't living up to their capabilities. Guys that had potential to become all stars someday. The only two things I fault him on was 1 getting swindled by Jon Daniels (who in my opinion is the best GM in the game) trading away Mike Napoli 4 days after acquiring him from the Angels for that trash of a setup man Frank Francisco and two being how he wasn't more aggressive in the Prince Fielder sweepstakes and tried to justify everything with the two words "Payroll Parameters". O_o

[JoeyBats]

I gave him a full 10. Rebuilding doesn't happen over night, it takes several years. He has a plan and he's sticking to it, unlike most GMs in this city. He doesn't want to ruin the future of this team, by signing a free agent for a ridiculously long contract for a short term success. Instead, he wants to build a championship team that will be in contention for several years.

I'm willing to stick with him for 3 more years at the very least. If we don't make it to the playoffs by 2015, than i will start to have a problem.

[guvernator]

In a vaccum, a 6. They were a .500 team when he signed on and they still are a .500 team. But looking at the whole picture, when you consider than his bosses are a bunch of cheapos and the improvements he has made to the Farm, I'll give him a 9. (Could've been a 10 if he knew how to assemble a bullpen)

[Tuuk]

I gave him an 8. I think he is probably the 3rd best GM in the game behind Friedman and Daniels. He's taken a team with a subpar major league roster and a depleted farm system in 3 years and made a remarkable turn around. Our farm system now rates as one of, if not, the best in the minor leagues and our major league team, although not remarkably better, is filled with controllable high upside young talent.

I admire his approach to building a team and can rationalize most of his moves so that's why he's better than 90% of MLB GMs to me. The Napoli trade and Cordero signing stand out as his only errors among many brilliant moves, and even then, the Cordero signing probably never occurs if Uehara doesn't veto the deal (yet again, another player I would have loved to acquire).

He took over a team in a miserable position, so although it is difficult to be patient right now given that the AL East is kind of up for grabs, we should all remember where this team was, and where it is now. I think the fact he was able to turn it around so quickly is a testament to how talented and intelligent he is. The Wells, Rasmus, and Escobar trades have all been huge wins. I am still fully behind the man and excited for the future of the club. He could handle some things better, but all in all, he's one of the best.

[Randle McMurphy]

9. I'm pretty confident, on the whole, in both his trading skills and the team's drafting/development. The team's overall approach in acquiring guys like Rasmus, Morrow, and Escobar has been great. Obviously, I would like to see more done in free agency (particularly with guys on one year-deals every year who could be bargains like Pena, Scott, and Edwin Jackson), but he's a bit hamstrung in that area considering what entity owns the team. Still, if he can throw around money at useless guys like Cordero, he should be able to make actual moves with the money that can help the team. Also, he gets a mark off for that awful Napoli for Francisco trade. We had our big bat right there that we needed and dealt it away for a compensation pick (essentially).

[drew_8730]

9, has a team that will be good in the future, just pissed about not getting a good free agent in fielder or darvish

[Michael Bradley]

I will go with a 9 as well. It would be a bit lower for some of his MLB moves (and/or lack of moves), but it is hard to blame him completely when Beeston and (post-Ted's death) Rogers are still around.

The farm system and MLB roster at the end of 2009 was in terrible shape. I believe the Jays were ranked in the bottom 5 in farm system in 2009. Now an argument can be made that the Jays have the best farm system in baseball, and despite trading Halladay have still maintained a .500-ish calibre MLB roster. He has taken JP Ricciardi prospects (i.e. low ceiling) and turned them into 3-4 WAR young MLB talent at critical spots (Rasmus-CF, Morrow-SP, Escobar-SS). He rarely ever trades from a position of weakness and is usually pouncing when other teams are. He loses some points for his bullpen moves (Napoli for Francisco, signing Cordero, signing Rauch, etc) and also for his lack of interest in signing cheap one year stop-gaps (Colon going to Oakland for $2M while the Jays pay Cordero $4.5M is something I won't get over), but when looking at the overall vision and the bulk of his moves, he has been a much needed change in the organization.

The main issue I can forsee with him is he will have to bend his "build from within" philosophy once Bautista declines (it may have started already). The elite level, or potentially elite level, prospects in the system are all in A-ball. Unless he rushes a ton of players, the Jays still need to add elite talent to the roster to fill critical holes (1B, 2B when KJ leaves, LF, etc). If the Jays continue on the .500 trend for a few more seasons until the first wave of high upside AA guys start to filter up (Sanchez, Syndergaard, Nicolino, Norris, etc), then it may test of the patience of the already impatient fanbase.

[Schad]

The main issue I can forsee with him is he will have to bend his "build from within" philosophy once Bautista declines (it may have started already).

It's the third rail of Jays fandom, but if we don't ascend to playoff-worthiness this year and don't appear to be on the precipice, a Bautista trade might not be a bad idea. Building from the ground up is wise, but it also means tough decisions with the 30+ crowd.

[Michael Bradley]

The main issue I can forsee with him is he will have to bend his "build from within" philosophy once Bautista declines (it may have started already).

It's the third rail of Jays fandom, but if we don't ascend to playoff-worthiness this year and don't appear to be on the precipice, a Bautista trade might not be a bad idea. Building from the ground up is wise, but it also means tough decisions with the 30+ crowd.

Agreed. It sucks because Bautista is by far my favorite current Blue Jay, but keeping him at a dirt cheap contract is meaningless if there is no intention of winning with him. Might as well try to move him for Jason Heyward+ (or something along those lines) and move on rather than fool fans into thinking the team cares about short-term success when they are running out Adam Lind at 1B everyday.

[Randle McMurphy]

It would surprise me if the Jays did that. While winning may not be of the highest importance right now, giving the appearance of trying to win remains so. As it stands, patience is already wearing thin among the fanbase...trading their best player (again) would be just about impossible to justify to them (especially right after Beeston tells a crowd of fans that the team will make the playoffs "2-3 times out of the next 5 years"). They'll continue to go on as they have, I'm sure.

[Schad]

It's not even necessarily whether we show the intention of winning with him...IMO, we're still enough pieces short that we'd have to either add $30m+ to our payroll (which is exceedingly unlikely without results preceding) or gamble in a big way by trading away the farm system. The latter is really a philosophic matter; we could probably challenge in a big way for the playoffs over the course of 2-3 years by doing so, but it might limit our long-term potential.

[Holmes]

4. We were a middling team before he came and we were a middling team after he came. One giant treadmill. I want results.

[Randle McMurphy]

It's not even necessarily whether we show the intention of winning with him...IMO, we're still enough pieces short that we'd have to either add $30m+ to our payroll (which is exceedingly unlikely without results preceding) or gamble in a big way by trading away the farm system. The latter is really a philosophic matter; we could probably challenge in a big way for the playoffs over the course of 2-3 years by doing so, but it might limit our long-term potential.

In reality, it made sense to trade Bautista last offseason after his incredible 2011 season. But that didn't happen, of course (for obvious reasons), and I certainly don't consider it any more likely now that the team is closer to this supposed window of contention.

[dagger]

I'm giving him a 6. He's a master manipulator of the draft, but I'm more dubious of his player development strategy and major-league roster building. I'm really not sure about the handling of Alvarez and Hutchinson in particular. You can argue that Drabek, Morrow, Romero were either drafted by another team, or by Riccardi, but Alvarez and Hutch are on his watch, and we would have been better off letting them progress through the system, especially Hutchinson, who had very little Double A experience.

Now, the draft part has been addressed by the cheapness of some MLB owners - did Beeston actually vote for that CBA - and that takes away a significant tool in AA's arsenal.

As for the major league scene. He hired Farrell. AA has shown great acumen for getting rid of several overpriced talent, but may be risk averse to going in the other direction - trading his some of his prospects for proven major leaguers.

I mean thank God, everyone here said, he didn't trade a package for Gio Gonzales! Stupid Washington sure overpaid... LOL

What's Gonzales doing? 8-2, Whip of 1.005, ERA of 2.34, 89 strikeouts in 72 innings, 0.1 HR per nine innings, and about three Ks for every BB.

(He'd be our best pitcher this season, guys).

Here, I dont know whether AA is overly conservative, or the victim of cheap ownership. I do know that you can fool the casual fan for another decade by relying solely on the draft to build a winner, but only if you are showing like your minor league system can actually develop these top prospects.

I disagree with how he has built the bullpen since he took over. I'm an advocate of directing some decent draft picks to the bullpen rather than try and make everyone a starter. Organic growth...

I give him credit for Rasmus, although the pitcher who beat us yesterday (ahem) would have helped us this season, too.

I give him credit for the Santos trade.

I give him credit for the Lawrie trade.

But from here on in, things look to get tougher. He can either sit back and have us wait on Marisnick, Syndergaard, Sanchez et al, to develop and mature - a five year span if no one blows out an elbow or shoulder or knee.

Or he can deal our most attractive older vets - Jose, EE, Yunel - for either ML help at positions where the farm system is weak, like 2B, or he can trade them for prospects, though I would hope he doesn't trade for prospects as far away from the majors as Marisnick et al.

None of these will be easy decisions to make, or to sell.

[Schad]

One giant treadmill.

I don't think that term means what you think it means.

[Randle McMurphy]

It's Gio Gonzalez and 70 innings of good pitching doesn't take away his prior control flaws, nor does it mean he would have succeeded like this in the far more difficult league/division with hitters who actually have patience and power.

[dagger]

It's Gio Gonzalez and 70 innings of good pitching doesn't take away his prior control flaws, nor does it mean he would have succeeded like this in the far more difficult league/division with hitters who actually have patience and power.

Please stop it. You can apply that excuse to almost any trade. If he was a Cy Young winner with minimal drawbacks, the price would have been exponentially higher.

You have to scout the guy, decide if the flaws are correctable, weigh the price, and if it is not exorbitant, take a leap of faith. You can't forever go around saying the price is too high, the price is too high, as an excuse not to take risks. I give him credit for the risks he has taken, even if they don't work out for whatever reason, but the quid pro quo of a trade not made is deciding he can build three-fifths of a starting rotation with Alvarez, Drabek, Hutchinson, McGowan, Cecil.

[Schad]

It's Gio Gonzalez and 70 innings of good pitching doesn't take away his prior control flaws, nor does it mean he would have succeeded like this in the far more difficult league/division with hitters who actually have patience and power.

Please stop it. You can apply that excuse to almost any trade. If he was a Cy Young winner with minimal drawbacks, the price would have been exponentially higher.

You have to scout the guy, decide if the flaws are correctable, weigh the price, and if it is not exorbitant, take a leap of faith. You can't forever go around saying the price is too high, the price is too high, as an excuse not to take risks. I give him credit for the risks he has taken, even if they don't work out for whatever reason, but the quid pro quo of a trade not made is deciding he can build three-fifths of a starting rotation with Alvarez, Drabek, Hutchinson, McGowan, Cecil.

If we're using the assumption of clairvoyance as our guiding principle, he deserves massive credit in equal measure for avoiding Darvish, whose control has been very poor...enough so to prompt questions about whether he'll be a league-average pitcher or better going forward.

[Randle McMurphy]

Please stop it.

You're the one bringing up a trade that the Jays weren't even involved in to make some kind of a ridiculous point that the Jays don't take risks (which couldn't be further from the truth). You stop it.

You can apply that excuse to almost any trade. If he was a Cy Young winner with minimal drawbacks, the price would have been exponentially higher.

The entire reason that people didn't want Gio Gonzalez was because there were concerns of how his suspect command and control would fare in the far superior AL East (where hitters routinely make pitchers who can't throw strikes pay). The fact that he's experiencing success in the NL is in no way surprising, nor does it prove that he would have done well in this division.

You have to scout the guy, decide if the flaws are correctable, weigh the price, and if it is not exorbitant, take a leap of faith.

And I'm sure AA and the Jays did all of those things and decided a "leap of faith" wasn't the prudent thing to do. There is absolutely no reason to think they were wrong in that regard.