The Washington Nationals today announced the hiring of Deric Ladnier as a National Crosschecker and Special Assistant to the General Manager. Nationals Senior Vice President and General Manager Jim Bowden made the announcement.
“Deric is among the elite talent evaluators in baseball and we are excited to add him to our staff,” Bowden said. “Deric has a proven track record in the industry, encompassing both scouting and player development.”
An 18-year veteran in scouting and player development, Ladnier joins the Nationals after serving the last nine seasons as Senior Director of Scouting with the Kansas City Royals. During his tenure with the Royals, he oversaw eight drafts while restructuring and stocking the organization’s player development system with prospects such as 24-year-old Alex Gordon (Baseball America Minor League Player of the Year and named J.G. Spink Award winner as the Topps/Minor League Player of the Year in 2006), 25-year-old Zack Greinke (Sporting News Minor League Player of the Year in 2003), 25-year-old Luke Hochevar (first-overall selection in 2006 First-Year Player Draft), 22-year-old Billy Butler (named best power hitter and second-best prospect in Royals organization by Baseball America entering 2006), 27-year-old Mike Aviles (seventh-round selection in 2003 First-Year Player Draft, hit .325 in 102 games this season and is candidate for American League Rookie of the Year), 20-year-old Mike Moustakas (second-overall selection in 2007 First-Year Player Draft, hit 22 home runs in first full professional season), and 18-year-old Eric Hosmer (third-overall selection in 2008 First-Year Player Draft).
Ladnier began his scouting career as an Area Supervisor with the Atlanta Braves in 1991 and advanced within the organization until he was named Director of Minor League Operations in 1996, serving as a Regional Supervisor and Assistant Director of Scouting and Player Development along the way. During each of his eight seasons with the Braves, they were recognized as having one of the top six player development systems in baseball as ranked by industry-expert Baseball America. They were credited with the top minor league talent pool in four of those seasons.
The 44-year-old began his career in baseball as an infielder in the Royals organization. He was selected in the eighth round of the 1985 First-Year Player Draft and remained with the Royals until his seven-year playing career was cut short by a shoulder injury in 1991. Ladnier played collegiately at the University of Mississippi.
#1 by Positively Half St - October 20th, 2008 at 12:36
I think Eckstein is a good move. I don’t know what to say about the others beyond, “They have to be better than who we had before.”
I can’t get excited about scouting picks for now, because 1) they have nobody left to trade for prospects, and 2) scouting only matters if you sign your high draft picks, and you don’t get any higher than your top pick.
#2 by Marc - October 20th, 2008 at 12:47
I tend to read these things like old Sovietology stuff. Do we make anything of the fact that he had those Braves connections? Suggests that he’d be close to Kasten? Special Asst. to the General Manager? Does that suggest a direct line to Bowden that doesn’t go through Brown or Rizzo?
As for his scouting acumen, I’ll just say that the Royals have sucked as much as the Nats do for a lot longer, so I dunno if I’d be looking to them as an organization to copy.
#3 by SlowPitch63 - October 20th, 2008 at 13:47
We’ve already established over the last seven or eight months that I’m easy to fool so continue to read at your own risk. I choose to be positive. The more scouting talent we have the more talent we are likely to discover. The next year is make or break for me as far as believing the Nats’ player acqusition plan is concerned. I would hope we would demonstrate our acumen in the Rule 5 draft, the amateur draft, trades and international acquisitions. Marc makes some good points about the organizational structure. We shall see, but for now I’m positive.
Let’s play two!
#4 by Berndaddy - October 20th, 2008 at 13:47
Marc – “I tend to read these things like old Sovietology stuff.” I nearly laugh out of my seat on that one…
Brian – Thanks for the info. I’m going to sit back and read the great back and forth now. BYE…
#5 by Coverage is lacking - October 20th, 2008 at 14:46
Where does this leave Dana Brown? Looks like this is the second guy who has been brought in above him. Which is fine with me, if the Nats aren’t that enamored of him, but I’ve got to think at some point he might look for another gig if he feels like his role is being diminished.
#6 by Nats fan in NJ - October 20th, 2008 at 15:56
CIL – Had the same thoughts about Dana Brown. Thought he was highly regarded?
#7 by Nats fan in NJ - October 20th, 2008 at 16:03
Regarding Brown, this is from Nats Journal. Sounds like Brown will be his boss, maybe?
He’ll be working directly under GM Jim Bowden, assistant GM Mike Rizzo and scouting director Dana Brown. Especially with two top-10 picks coming up in 2009’s amateur draft, this is an exciting year. “At the end of the day it’ll be Jim, Mike and Dana making those [drafting] decisions,” Ladnier said, but he simply hopes to inform and advise them.
Ladnier believes that his scouting philosophy is very similar to Dana Brown’s. Both of them like athletes — “athletes that have skills.” Ladnier said, “Every team has different ways of looking at players, but I know from the outside looking in, Dana’s way of looking at players is similar to mine.”
#8 by Pilchard - October 20th, 2008 at 17:25
Was Ladner fired from the Royals scouting department or did he leave his job in KC to come to DC?
#9 by Los Doce Ocho - October 20th, 2008 at 17:55
Ladnier was fired and offered another position within the KC organization
#10 by Scott - October 20th, 2008 at 22:00
The real news is that Ladnier will be reporting to GM Bowden rather than GM Rizzo.
Maybe, someone should tell Lerner and his accountant that he could cut costs if there was no GM at all. So, just let Bowden go.
#11 by Hoagie - October 20th, 2008 at 22:18
For anyone who’s interested, I tried to compile some links on Ladnier today. If you want to check them out, here’s the link: http://dcsportsplus.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-deric-ladnier-links.html
There are a few Q&A’s from when he was still with the Royals, but I figured that would be a good way for everyone to figure out what his preferences and dealings consist of.
#12 by Marc - October 21st, 2008 at 13:52
Thanks, BD – I was hoping someone would get it.
Exactly how many senior scouting execs does it take to recognize that Strasburg is a pretty good pitcher?
#13 by estuartj - October 21st, 2008 at 15:07
Marc, not many, but how many does it take to decide on who you take at #10 when you have no “leverage”? How about in the top of the 2nd round? Who do you take #1 overall in the rule 5 draft?
Adding more brain power never hurts. Not using once you have it doesn’t help either, but overall I think this is a very good move.
If nothing else it shows, to some degree at least, how serious the organization takes the draft(s) and that they are moving to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity in player development.
#14 by MO Nats Fan - October 21st, 2008 at 15:08
HA! We HOPE this chance only comes once in a lifetime!
#15 by BIM - October 21st, 2008 at 18:59
Seems the FO is getting a little thick in the middle (Lerners to Kasten to Boone/Bowden to Rizzo to Brown to Ladnier. Tht seems like a few too many links for vetting on the player scouting / development end of the business. You think player signings were slow this year – wait’ll you see 2009.
#16 by hartmanbirge - October 22nd, 2008 at 14:24
Why the hell does any of this matter if we can’t sign our top pick? I give a damn.
#17 by Pilchard - October 23rd, 2008 at 14:56
Not sure if this the right thread, but Baseball America is staring their breakdown of the 2008 draft class and the Nats received the following mentions so far:
Best Late Round Pick Signed Above Slot Bonus
The One That Got Away (College Players)
Among other catagories top 5 drafts:
In the next few weeks, BA will provide a breakdown of each team’s draft with a grade.
Also, in total bonuses spent on the 2008 draft, the Nats were 22nd out of 30 (after also being tied for last among the 6 teams in baseball that failed to sign a single international FA to a six figure bonus). So, if the “Plan” was to spend among the least on player development in 2008, the Nats certainly accomplished that goal.
#18 by Sue Dinem - October 24th, 2008 at 10:48
At what point will people realize that spending the most is not necessarily the wisest? Furthermore, at what point will people realize that we cannot be able to realistically grade a given draft until at least three years? AND AT WHAT POINT WILL PEOPLE GET OVER AARON CROW?
#19 by JD - October 24th, 2008 at 11:56
Facts are that this team isn’t investing in player development (in any area) or on the Major League roster. I can’t believe anybody is suggesting we shouldn’t be investing more to improve this team.
#20 by Jon - October 24th, 2008 at 13:01
JD- How can you say that this team isn’t investing in player development? You could examine the results of the minor league teams, the average age of players on the pro team (25.7), the fact that they traded for younger players (Bonafacio, Milledge, Dukes), or the fact that they have several top level minor league coaches (Knorr).
This is not to say that they couldn’t do more, but as Sue said, spending the most isn’t the solution (i.e. Yankees). It takes time to develop teams (again look at the yanks in the early 90’s compared to where they were in the latter part of the decade, or even the Rays in more recent times). So why not be patient and enjoy the level of production in the minors?
#21 by JD - October 24th, 2008 at 13:50
Jon – I’m not sure how your first paragraph shows this team “investing” in anything. Last year, they didn’t spend on the draft, they didn’t spend in the international market, and they didn’t spend on the Major League roster. They had 1 year spending money on the draft (2007) but other than that I don’t see any evidence. I don’t see any evidence that they are spending more than the average team in minor league coaches or scouts.
I am, in general, a patient person, but I just don’t see the level of investment in player development that we were promised (even taking Crow our of the equation).
#22 by Sue Dinem - October 24th, 2008 at 15:19
Jon – Perhaps you can present some evidence to support your delusion? All I’m seeing are the usual b!tching and moaning and no hard numbers or facts.
#23 by Berndaddy - October 24th, 2008 at 16:46
The real truth is there’s nothing we can do about the spending ourselves. We’re fans. Short for fanatics. The Grand canyon wasn’t made in a day. Neither will the Nats. MLB used this franchise for years. Depleting the farm system. I’m not a big fan of Jimbo but he’s a resourceful and cunning ( if not stupid ie:Skin cancer blahblahblah) SOB.His team of scouts and player development people have made a dent in reviving the depleted farm system with their player selections. Crow withstanding and international big buys, they haven’t done badly for the lack of funds. My gut tells me the Lerners thought that they could put all their focus on the ball park and gambled on the draft and players. I wish I could remember the article I read last week that stated Ted Lerners was unhappy they didn’t sign Crow. That could mean the mgmt group is might let go their vise grip on the purse strings. In the mean time I follow the kids we’ve got. That’s where I invest my time. Let’s hope for the best and sooner than later we’ll have a team, and more importantly , a farm system we can be proud of.
#24 by Sue Dinem - October 24th, 2008 at 16:59
Exactly. Couldn’t agree more. I’d much rather talk about the players we’ve got instead of the constant prattle about the ones we didn’t get.
Anybody else have terribly mixed feelings about Knorr getting named to the parent Nats coaching staff?
#25 by Berndaddy - October 24th, 2008 at 17:06
Bob Henley has done a pretty good job with the GCL Nats. Maybe they bring him up and give that job to Cesar Cedeno who they’re hot and bothered about..??? In either case it’s a bummer for the P-Nats…
#26 by Berndaddy - October 24th, 2008 at 17:10
Pilchard I’ve been meaning to ask you, do you think it’s worth it having a subscription to Baseball America. I know I find myself going to the site a lot for the free info. I can’t wait to read how they think we did with the draft. Thx
#27 by MiLB Fan - October 24th, 2008 at 17:19
Sue – I think Jon is agreeing with you. In addition, I too am of two minds regarding Randy K’s movin on up…Glad for him, but going he is going to be missed…
#28 by MamaB - October 25th, 2008 at 16:33
Sue- have very mixed feelings about Knorr moving up. It’s great for him, but he was so amazing with the P-Nats, it’s a huge loss. Hope he will be allowed to do more than answer the phone in the bullpen, or it will be a waste of his knowledge and skill. Should be interesting to see who the P-Nats get for manager and coaches.
#29 by Sue Dinem - October 25th, 2008 at 17:40
MamaB – The story I heard this past summer was that Darnell Coles would “move up” if Randy Knorr were to leave Potomac (then, the theory was that Knorr would be made manager of Harrisburg).
#30 by Pilchard - October 25th, 2008 at 20:13
Berndaddy,
If you are only interested in Nats player development info, the BA subscription may not be worth it as most of the Nats specific info gets posted here or other free sites sooner or later. However, if you have a more general interest in baseball prospects, the draft, international FA’s, among other things, BA is great. It also gives you a perspective on how the Nats are doing versus the competition.
Boggles my mind that anyone would try to defend the Nats failure to invest in player development in 2008. I am not complaining about the Nats not entering the MLB free agent market, but for the Nats to be one of 6 MLB teams to not sign a single international free agent to six figure contract, after also being one of the bottom 8 teams in spending in the 2008 draft, flatly contradicts the Nats’ claim that they are investing in player development. They simply are not. I am more than willing to be patient if the Nats are taking steps to build a strong foundation, but the Nats did not take the steps to do it in 2008. No reasonable argument can be made to defend the Nats played development (lack of) effort this past year.
#31 by Sue Dinem - October 26th, 2008 at 08:48
No reasonable argument can be made to defend the Nats[sic] played[sic] development (lack of) effort this past year.
…besides the monomaniacal focus on dollars spent, of course. Because, really, there is no other way to judge an organization’s efforts. It’s purely about the money spent – and the team that spends the most always wins.
#32 by JD - October 26th, 2008 at 10:57
Sue -
We understand that spending money does not guarantee wins, but investing in player development does improve your chances. And “investing” means spending money on playrs/scouts/coaches. We should be players in the international markets, but we did almost nothing this year. I can’t understand why the fan base in one of better markets in MLB shouldn’t demand that ownership tries to put the millions they earn into the product.
#33 by Pilchard - October 26th, 2008 at 11:27
Sue,
Appreciate the grammar/punctuation lesson. When you don’t have a point to make in response, resort to being a grammar granny.
According to BA, the top international FA for Nats in 2008 was Dominican Alexander Romero (signed for $20,000 in May). Of the draft eligble international free agents (DR, Venezuela, Curacao, Korea, Taiwan, Australia), the Nats failed to land a single highly rated prospect — not one. If you disagree, let me know those international prospects that the Nats signed this year and why you feel each prospect gives the franchise strong hope for the future.
In 2006, when the Nats signed Smiley Gonzales for $1.4 million (Gonzales is considered one of the top prospects in the system — which justifies the thought that spending $ on international free agents can bear fruit), the Nats stated their desire to be a major presence in the DR as part of the plan. During the past year, the only mark the Nats made in the international free agent market was to be accused of mis-appropriating bonus money. Sad.
I am a Nats fan. I want to be hopeful about the future. Regardless of money spent, let me know the Nats player development acquisitions in 2008 which should give us the warm and fuzzies? From every thing that I have read, the Nats are at the bottom among MLB teams.
#34 by Sue Dinem - October 26th, 2008 at 12:00
Sure, just as soon as you can talk about something other than how much money was or wasn’t spent – it’s just tiresome.
#35 by Berndaddy - October 26th, 2008 at 16:39
People can’t we all just get along…
Riddle me this Batmen & Ladies
Can the lack of Int’l free agency be do to possible trouble with the DR inquiry thingy?
Maybe the Lerner’s felt that the economy was going to crap out and needed to be more liquid with their cash!!! (just kidding BTW)
#36 by VTBill - October 26th, 2008 at 20:26
After reading this blog for a few months I’m convinced that Sue Dinem must be part of the Lerner Clan. If not Mark Lerner himself! Pilchard’s concerns are valid and his direct request to “let me know those international prospects that the Nats signed this year and why you feel each prospect gives the franchise strong hope for the future.” is something I’d be interested in myself. Not so much by Sue but by the organization. Pilchard, I think your questions are valid. Sue, what I find tiresome is someone who expresses themselves by criticizing others.
#37 by stats freak - October 26th, 2008 at 20:44
Not to agree with Sue Dee… but that person is right. It’s not about the AMOUNT of money and everyone really needs to forget that. It really does boil down to being SMART and picking wisely.
As for International signings, that’s a needle in a haystack and all of you can’t possibly think that that is going to change the Washington Nationals organization!?!?
The Nationals need to develop a LOT better. And yes, I know everyone is excited about Potomac winning, but once yet get past the excitemnent, realize that at different times this year they were very old for that level. I’m not taking anything away from the players, but none of it translates into the Nats being better at the major league level.
To put it in perspective, there were 15 league champions in the minors last year. FIFTEEN. Are all of those organizations headed in the right direction!?!? Just curious…
The Nats do not develop well yet. They draft better but still aren’t developing well. They rush players to the point of it just being a joke. They don’t seem to have a plan for player development, rather it seems at many times to be kneejerk reactions to a few good games.
Did it really further Bill Rhinehart’s career to come to Harrisburg? Don’t you all think he’ll start there again and prove he can have extended success at that level?
What about Leonard Davis at AAA? What if he would have stayed in Harrisburg and had success the rest of the season!??
This organization has the WORST big league team and that’s not going to significantly change in a year or two. And spending 30 million or 20 million on the upcoming draft isn’t going to significantly change it either, just look at the history of the draft.
Rather they need to make a LOT better decisions. The Twins and A’s don’t spend a ton of money but somehow those two organizations have been pretty good the past ten years plus, with a few bad years sprinkled in. The make SMART moves, develop with a plan… don’t care about winning per se in the minor’s but they do keep their teams together and don’t move players around much during the season. The Indians could be put into this too.
Just my 15 cents worth…
#38 by Sue Dinem - October 26th, 2008 at 21:12
Not to disagree with you, stats freak, but you only validated that point I’ve been trying to make for months now, even if it’s been lost on the philistines (VTBill, you can GFY) and the TOEFL dropouts (Pilchard): It’s not about the money, it’s about making smart decisions.
#39 by VTBill - October 27th, 2008 at 10:21
Sometimes making a smart decision involves spending money. Look at the Boston Red Sox and Daisuke Matsuzaka. What they paid just to talk to him seemed ridiculous at the time. To their fans, however, it showed they are willing to do whatever it takes to win. And oh by the way, it turned out to be a smart decision. They have the money and aggressively pursue talent when they see it. The Nationals haven’t showed any aggressiveness and as a fan it’s frustrating. Maybe the reason the Nationals didn’t spend big money on international free agents is because there wasn’t anyone worth it. I doubt that but don’t have anything that would tell me otherwise. We don’t know if the Nationals even gave a serious effort to sign any of the top international prospects. And Sue, thanks, your ad hominem response really does a great job in reinforcing your argument.
#40 by Pilchard - October 27th, 2008 at 11:01
Sue,
What smart decisions did the Nats make in 2008 as it relates to player development acquisitions? While I agree that spending the most does not always result in the most productive end result; however, spending nothing never does. The Nats essentially spent nothing in the international FA market this year when a lot of highly respected and frugal organizations did (like the A’s).
Would love to hear anyone in the Nats’ organization explain the philosophy behind taking a pass on international FAs this year after it was allegedly part of the “Plan” when the Lerners took over. Maybe it was an awful year for international FAs; so, the Nats decided to take a pass when almost no other organization did. I just have not heard that from any Nats rep in a position of authority.
As mentioned above, I would guess (and it’s a total guess and hope to be wrong), that the brewing bonus scandal caused the Lerners to nix any significant international signings in 2008. If that is the case, would think that the Lerners could/should explain that to the fans as well.
#41 by bangzoom - October 27th, 2008 at 11:20
Pilchard, you might be right on the bonus scandal leading to no international FA signings, but wouldn’t the Lerners admitting that just be an admission of guilt?
I’m not sure where to find a decent list of this year’s IFA signings, but I’d be interested to find out if the White Sox signed anyone of note. They were also thought of as a bonus-skimming club.
If/when the results of an investigation come out, I think it’ll answer some questions.
#42 by JD - October 27th, 2008 at 11:43
Bangzoom,
From BA’s IFA signings synopsis,
Summary: Since the firing of former senior director of player personnel Dave Wilder in May amid allegations of bonus skimming, the White Sox have laid low overseas. Of the players the White Sox did sign in the last year, the early results have been underwhelming. Last year’s July 2 class for the White Sox was highlighted by Dominican shortstop Juan Silverio, who signed for $600,000. Silverio slumped to a .228/.265/.321 line with eight walks and 56 strikeouts in 59 Rookie-level Appalachian League games, and scouts came away largely unimpressed.
For those who love the Indians/Twins model, both teams signed multiple players for 6 figure bonuses this year. A’s signed only one but at at $4+ Million bonus.
The Nats were 1 of 6 teams that didn’t pay six figures for any player in the international market.
#43 by Sue Dinem - October 27th, 2008 at 12:21
Pilchard,
I believe there may be something to the bonus-skimming theory, but when I look over BA’s list of minor-league transactions from now to this past April the thing I mainly see is cleaning house (Bangzoom – I couldn’t a decent IFA list for this year; it looked like a blogger tried to do it last year but then fell off the map).
Had injuries not been so rampant in the system, I suspect there may have been more guys let go. In other words, there were some players that were kept on as insurance. If you were to argue that the Nats may have been too conservative in that regard, I wouldn’t disagree. I will, however, point to Brian’s mantra that it’s going to take years to undo the damage that M(inaya)LB did to the franchise, and that’s not being an apologist to the Lerners, regardless of what someone that may have grown up in Orleans, Essex or Caledonia county may say.
#44 by natsfan1a - October 27th, 2008 at 13:22
Re. the promotion for Knorr, I’m happy for him but will miss seeing him at Potomac and hope that they can find someone who will be as good a skipper as he was.
In other news, the P-Nats have their 2009 schedule up:
http://potomac.nationals.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081027&content_id=471079&vkey=news_t436&fext=.jsp&sid=t436
#45 by natsfan1a - October 27th, 2008 at 13:25
Also, the P-Nats won an award as the best Class A Advanced team:
http://potomac.nationals.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081027&content_id=471100&vkey=news_t436&fext=.jsp&sid=t436
#46 by EdDC - October 27th, 2008 at 17:33
A friend of mine who is close to the DC mayor at the time, Tony Williams, struck up a conversation with an MLB insider before the owners were selected. This insider said, “You don’t want the Lerners. They will fight you for every dime.”
This organization does seem baseball-smart to me. The Nats have made excellent choices in Kasten, and in the farm director and player development personnel, in boosting up international scouting, and now in getting a good group of coaches together. I even like Jim Bowden–a lot–which shows you I am not anti-Nat in any way.
It is clearly the spending that is the huge problem, not the lack of smart decisions.
For example, the Nats should have wrapped up Zim a long time ago. The closer Zim gets to free agency, the more he will start looking at quality teams who are dedicated to building a winner.
Another example of a lack of financial commitment is to look at Guzman’s contract. It’s a decent contract ($16 mill over two years) for a .300 SS. But my problem with it is that it is the most expensive contract given anyone under the Lerners, as far as I know. Guzman is fine, but he should not be the top guy you get.
Another example involves free agent signings. The BIGGEST one last winter was Lo Duca at $5 million. That’s nothing in MLB. No wonder the Nats have no one to trade. No wonder when their players sign elsewhere as free agents, they are so mediocre that they do not yield sandwich picks.
And when the Nats make a trade, has anyone noticed that they never take on decent contracts? This is very restrictive. So the fans blame Bowden?
And the draft? Not signing their top pick is disgraceful. And acknowledging that they have only slot budgets for their draft picks is also disgraceful. The Nats say that if they go over slot for one guy, they have to forgo another guy. That is woefully disregarding the future.
Taken together, this means we the fans did not get the kind of competitive club we had hoped for.
#47 by Berndaddy - October 27th, 2008 at 22:53
Check out our kids in the AFL… http://www.mlb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=l119&t=t_ros&cid=542
Davis has been doing fine from the begining. Desmond and Rhinehart are coming on right now. The pitchers have been doing great. Well, all but VanAllen and again he’s coming on lately.
Davis may have a chance to at least go to big camp in the spring. He’d be great off the bench. He can play all the corners and he’s showing once he figures out pitching he can kick butt. .326 AVG .383 OBP .581 SLG 7 SO with 42 AB
Carr is kicking butt 1.23 ERA 7.1 IP 5 SO and .55 GO/AO small sample but still this is the best of the best prospect, eh…
There is a light at the end of the tunnel. The lights just way down there a ways, but it’s there.
#48 by EdDC - October 28th, 2008 at 09:59
Tampa Bay and Florida show it can be done on a small budget. It means not going after the Tex and CC’s of the baseball world. As much as it hurts to say, it probably also means you can’t trade for expensive contracts–only for low-budget types. To me, this is very hurtful because you don’t get tradable commodities that you can turn into young prospects and sandwich picks down the road. It means a delay in rebuilding as well as poor performance in the next season, if this path is continued.
DC is the 5th largest region in population–bigger than the Boston region–and we are the most affluent of all the markets (some stats show NY as the most affluent, but it goes back and forth). But the ownership regards us as small market, and that’s what counts, not the population stats.
But even with this serious limitation, it still means you have to sign your draft picks, grab some top international talent, and sign your young stars to long-term contracts. Stan Kasten has to be the one to make these points. Kasten was a key reason the Lerners were awarded the team, so Kasten has the leverage with the Lerners and the other owners. To me, this is the light at the end of the tunnel.
#49 by JD - October 28th, 2008 at 12:11
Anybody else seen rumors about Kasten headed to Toronto? Saw this today in the Toronto Sun.
PHILADELPHIA — Paul Beeston was in his Rogers Centre office yesterday, Day 14 at his new job.
The Blue Jays CEO on an interim basis almost is ready to move forward with his search to hire a president to replace Paul Godfrey.
Beeston refused to comment on Stan Kasten, current president of the Washington Nationals, whose name has been mentioned most as a successor to Godfrey.
#50 by EdDC - October 28th, 2008 at 13:16
Makes sense. I can’t imagine Kasten feels good about DC’s sorry ownership. The Lerner financial restrictions are destroying Stan Kasten’s well-built reputation as a wise manager of player and financial resources. If Kasten leaves, it will be a horrible sign.
It would be better for Kasten to stay home in the US. It’s too cold up there! Kasten is the Nats’ best hope to focus on building a winner. Hopefully, this option, if true, will give Kasten leverage to get the Lerners to provide decent budgets for draftees, international signings, long-term contracts for young stars already on the team, free agents and trade targets.
#51 by Pilchard - October 28th, 2008 at 15:44
While I agree that it would be a bad sign if Kasten left, as I doubt he would leave if he felt the Nats were on the verge of a breakthrough. That said, what does Stan Kasten really do to help this franchise? Bowden, Rizzo and Ladnier (and their staff) make the player development decisions. Manny runs the team on the field. The Lerners seem very hands-on owners as far as the major business decisions as I doubt it was Kasten’s idea to sue the City, not pay rent or to hold and/or lower season ticket prices.
It seems like Kasten is simply a PR guy who makes occasional TV/Radio or public appearances to talk up the team and the “Plan”. Just not sure what value he adds to the Nats right now.
I keep hearing the credit that Kasten got for “building the Braves” in the 1990s, but John Shuerholz was the player development architect of that team. Kasten was team President of both the Atlanta Hawks and the Braves as Turner owned both teams; which makes you wonder how much day to day input he could have had on either team. While I have no idea how those teams were run, again, it seemed to me like Kasten was a PR guy for the Braves and Hawks who occasionally provided input on major decisions, but again, the Lerners seem a lot more involved with the Nats than Ted Turner was with the Braves.
#52 by EdDC - October 28th, 2008 at 16:33
Kasten helps in the following two ways, in addition to whatever else Presidents do to run an organization:
Kasten sets organizational philosophy. For example, let’s not go for the quick fix. Let’s focus on pitching, pitching, pitching. Adding expensive, aging free agents saps your budget, and such a focus hurts more than helps. Let’s build through youth and the draft. In other words, Kasten shapes the Plan. Kasten reigns in Bowden when Bowden gets unfocused on the Plan.
Kasten is the one who has to stand up to the Lerners to tell them where they need to spend resources. No one else can do that. Without Kasten, the score is Frugality 9 and Baseball 1. Yes, the Lerners are hands on, as you point out. If the Lerners shut Kasten out of their decisions, then Kasten leaves and frugality rules. It is probably showdown time between Kasten and the Lerners.