Rosenthal: Jays, O's still discussing Duquette?

[C Court]

On the way back from a meeting I listened to Blair and Brunt talk about what this means for the Jays. In summary, this is their take.

While Beeston is technically in charge, he has a limited ability to make any major decisions. Apparently he knew last fall that Rogers wanted to replace him. And even though he's back for another year, Rogers are actively searching for his replacement. They can expect resumes to start pouring in.

Alex is in the final year of his deal and it is highly unlikely he receives a contract extension from Beeston. His hands are tied to some degree. For example, if the Jays struggle, does Alex have the green light to trade Jose or Edwin for prospects and start a rebuild? Probably not.

So Beeston and Alex are day-to-day caretakers until Beeston's replacement is hired. Alex's future is dependant on the new Jays President. If the Jays don't make the playoffs, he's almost certainly gone at season's end. Alex has no choice but to go all in to win now.

On the positive side, Beeston has nothing to lose. So if Alex wants more money to sign a free agent, Paul will lobby hard for it. He told Blair this morning that "money is available if needed".

[satyr9]

On the positive side, Beeston has nothing to lose. So if Alex wants more money to sign a free agent, Paul will lobby hard for it. He told Blair this morning that "money is available if needed".

But if you're Rogers, or whichever board members are leading this movement, you're hardly going to be inclined to sign off on more money to make your lame ducks look better.

Now, it's such a prima facie case for a little extra spending it might happen anyway, but the only upside I would've seen to Duquette over Beeston from a fan's POV is the board's desire to make their new hire look good, which they can only really contribute to by allotting more money.

[C Court]

On the positive side, Beeston has nothing to lose. So if Alex wants more money to sign a free agent, Paul will lobby hard for it. He told Blair this morning that "money is available if needed".

But if you're Rogers, or whichever board members are leading this movement, you're hardly going to be inclined to sign off on more money to make your lame ducks look better.

Now, it's such a prima facie case for a little extra spending it might happen anyway, but the only upside I would've seen to Duquette over Beeston from a fan's POV is the board's desire to make their new hire look good, which they can only really contribute to by allotting more money.

Couldn't agree more.

From what I heard this morning, the plan by Rogers was to have a new CEO in place last November to begin mapping out a vision for the future. But with how this blew up in their faces, the Jays are now in a holding pattern through this season.

[polo007]

http://pmd.fan590.com/audio_on_demand-3 ... erview.mp3

Paul Beeston joins The Jeff Blair Show to discuss signing a one-year extension as president of the Toronto Blue Jays after weeks of talk about him being pushed out before spring training.

[Schad]

On the positive side, Beeston has nothing to lose. So if Alex wants more money to sign a free agent, Paul will lobby hard for it. He told Blair this morning that "money is available if needed".

But if you're Rogers, or whichever board members are leading this movement, you're hardly going to be inclined to sign off on more money to make your lame ducks look better.

Now, it's such a prima facie case for a little extra spending it might happen anyway, but the only upside I would've seen to Duquette over Beeston from a fan's POV is the board's desire to make their new hire look good, which they can only really contribute to by allotting more money.

Most likely, though the decision-making apparatus is so convoluted, and their motives so difficult to grasp, that it still comes down to politics so miserably silly as to be entirely unpredictable. Ed Rogers claiming that only his leadership skills and keen eye for baseball execs can turn this club into a money-maker? Throw money at the current regime to make him look foolish! This whole debacle putting the board under the microscope? Buy some PR!

The only guarantee is that the end-result will make absolutely no sense to anyone outside that bubble.

[MikeM]

It's like our off-season was going too well. Rogers had to step in and essentially stop it by creating this huge **** mess.

[Michael Bradley]

I think it's clear they went after a GM (Duquette) for a reason. They wanted to clean house on management, from Beeston down to AA. I doubt Duquette had any plans to keep AA on board if he came over. It's definitely do-or-die for AA, because once his support system (Beeston) is gone, then he is swimming without a paddle.

I would have been fine with firing AA after the 2014 season (especially after the way August/September went down), but he's done more than enough to get another year.

[Randle McMurphy]

I think it's clear they went after a GM (Duquette) for a reason. They wanted to clean house on management, from Beeston down to AA.

Which would have been a little more understandable if it happened in October instead of being precipitated by Ed Rogers calling his possible candidates up on the eve of the Winter Meetings. Such a **** up organization.

[C Court]

I found this interesting from the Ken Rosenthal piece.

Beeston, 70, apparently ticked people off at the Jays' parent company, the Rogers Corp. He also ticked off Major League Baseball by opposing the election of Rob Manfred as commissioner. But did the Jays need to embarrass him?

[Lateral Quicks]

It's like our off-season was going too well. Rogers had to step in and essentially stop it by creating this huge **** mess.

I'll never forget opening day last year being ruined by that story of the players passing the hat to sign another starter. This team is one PR disaster after another. It would be nice if we could focus on baseball come opening day this year.

[Lateral Quicks]

I think it's clear they went after a GM (Duquette) for a reason. They wanted to clean house on management, from Beeston down to AA. I doubt Duquette had any plans to keep AA on board if he came over. It's definitely do-or-die for AA, because once his support system (Beeston) is gone, then he is swimming without a paddle.

I would have been fine with firing AA after the 2014 season (especially after the way August/September went down), but he's done more than enough to get another year.

My thoughts exactly. He's added one MVP-calibre player plus another all-star calibre player, one full-time regular, and a strong ready/near-ready prospect, all while decreasing salary and not giving up that much of consequence. It would be pretty harsh to turf him now.

[CrookedJ]

1. Rogers is great at creating stability at the top of their pro sports teams Jays + MLSE having issues at the top with keeping / filling positions for what SHOULD be extremely in demand positions.

2. Agree with Satyr - no lame duck front office is getting significant money from ownership. Why commit to moves that a new front office next year (?) may not agree with. Standing pat really does make more sense than making moves in the wrong direction. Spend the money when a new Pres/GM are in place...( or don't, but not now)

3. The off-season is still an improvement, just not as much as it could have been if they made the same moves + took a shot at filling the obvious holes and spending the savings. To be honest its probably been better than I was expecting.

4. A one year extension to Beeston really only means that they don't want the distraction of a vacancy or a president without a contract. It also conveniently gives the appearance that they have moved on from this Duquette disaster. In reality they will probably ditch Beeston ASAP when a better option becomes available whether it be before/ during / after this season.

[-MetA4-]

The main takeaway from all of this is that your ownership's competence/commitment is what ultimately determines success. Too many people like to assume that swapping through GM's is going to magically "work", when in reality there are less than a handful of actual GMs out there that can tip-toe around poor ownership and build a winner. I really hope that this embarrassment opens some eyes up at Rogers and we can get some real **** in place so that a year from now we can hire a strong President and hopefully move this team in the right direction.

[Schad]

The main takeaway from all of this is that your ownership's competence/commitment is what ultimately determines success. Too many people like to assume that swapping through GM's is going to magically "work", when in reality there are less than a handful of actual GMs out there that can tip-toe around poor ownership and build a winner. I really hope that this embarrassment opens some eyes up at Rogers and we can get some real **** in place so that a year from now we can hire a strong President and hopefully move this team in the right direction.

Agreed. We don't need a president because the position is massively important...we need one because Rogers thinks one is massively important, and their hand-picked guy would hopefully have more pull and latitude than they're giving Beeston/Anthopolous. I don't expect Rogers to ever hand anyone the keys to the vault, but we need some goddamned consistency, where the team is more than a chesspiece in the neverending dramas of the Rogers boardroom and balance sheet.

[satyr9]

I agree with both of you with one exception. The new President won't mean a damn thing in anything other than the shortest of short runs either.

I don't know why the worm turned on Beeston, but Rogers did love him for most of his second tenure and for good reason; He fixed the Blue Jays. Go back to the end of JP. Beeston picked a good GM, got the money allocated in the right ways (09 increases were on draft and IFA), fixed the logo and jerseys, re-structured the seat sales (Rogers main complaint back then was free tickets making them look bad), fixed the 100 level concourse, and created a huge amount of renewed interest, those enormous TV numbers we all so love to tout. I don't mean to give him all the credit for this, 'cause some of it was just a sleeping giant waiting for something interesting to disturb our slumber, but I cannot imagine that Rogers felt anything but happiness at the prospect of Beeston sticking around forever until the very recent past. Most people's main complaint about Beeston here has been what a company double-speaking yes man he's been.

The difference between the state of the franchise in 08/09 and now is ridiculous, especially from the ownership chair. I get that something's happened to piss some of them off (whatever goodwill Eddy thought he might get from Manfred for ousting Beeston, I promise it's gone now), but the payroll hasn't been withheld because Rogers hated Beeston, he's carried their water this whole time and the fact he's getting run roughshod right now does not bode well for whoever replaces him.

That person will know from second one that appeasing upward is the only route to job security, ever. Yes, in the short-term it's more likely the personalities throw some money in to help make themselves look smart (although Schad pointed out trying to predict that merry-go-round isn't worth the effort), but it'll be a short PR honeymoon and nothing more, win or lose.

[Schad]

It may be pretty short-lived, as Rogers does love to eat its young (where young = 55-70 year old men in suits with hair that looks to be glued on), but the person or people pushing for a new president will also have some political capital on the line should they fail, and thus incentive to back them hard. Of course, that might make others even more willing to **** the organization over, so ugh. Being a strand of horsehair in the rope of a tug-of-war between multimillionaire/billionaire sociopaths is so very maddening.

[vaff87]

It may be pretty short-lived, as Rogers does love to eat its young (where young = 55-70 year old men in suits with hair that looks to be glued on), but the person or people pushing for a new president will also have some political capital on the line should they fail, and thus incentive to back them hard. Of course, that might make others even more willing to **** the organization over, so ugh. Being a strand of horsehair in the rope of a tug-of-war between multimillionaire/billionaire sociopaths is so very maddening.

Well CEO is supposedly the position with the highest number of sociopaths.

[Komodo]

The main takeaway from all of this is that your ownership's competence/commitment is what ultimately determines success. Too many people like to assume that swapping through GM's is going to magically "work", when in reality there are less than a handful of actual GMs out there that can tip-toe around poor ownership and build a winner. I really hope that this embarrassment opens some eyes up at Rogers and we can get some real **** in place so that a year from now we can hire a strong President and hopefully move this team in the right direction.

Are you a fan of the Leafs or Raptors by any chance?

[Komodo]

It may be pretty short-lived, as Rogers does love to eat its young (where young = 55-70 year old men in suits with hair that looks to be glued on), but the person or people pushing for a new president will also have some political capital on the line should they fail, and thus incentive to back them hard. Of course, that might make others even more willing to **** the organization over, so ugh. Being a strand of horsehair in the rope of a tug-of-war between multimillionaire/billionaire sociopaths is so very maddening.

Well CEO is supposedly the position with the highest number of sociopaths.

Gotta love capitalism. Or human nature. One or the other.

[C Court]

Earlier Bobcat said he'd heard that Beeston did some things that really pissed off the higher-ups at Rogers, but declined to provide details.

Tonight on PTS, when either Brunt or Shannon mentioned it (I can't remember which), Bobcat said he's pretty sure that the bad blood between Paul and Rogers had something to do with Anthopoulus. He said "Anthoupolus is in right in the middle of it." McCown went on to say that a lot of people at Rogers are not fans of AA and they wanted to fire him. Beeston stepped in and said 'no way - AA stays.'

Bob said he would ask Beeston about this on Tuesday, but he admitted that Paul would not likely answer the question.