- This topic has 11 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The Athletic posted an article where 40 MLB executives were asked to rank the Top 10 front offices. 20 different teams received votes. In order:
1. Dodgers
2. Rays
3. Brewers
4. Guardians
5. Yankees
6. Braves
7. Phillies
8. Dbacks
9. Orioles
10. Padres
11. Mets
12. Tigers
13. Astros
14. Rangers
15. Twins
16. Royals
17. Mariners
18. Red Sox
19. Reds
20. NaionalsThe Cardinals were one of the 10 teams that did not receive any votes.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6273808/2025/04/16/mlb-top-10-front-offices-executive-vote/
I would not have given the Cardinals a vote either.
Not sure how the Nationals, Reds and Twins got any votes…
They probably only take into consideration what happens at the major league level. And the Cards were dormant during the off season.
I didn’t know that they ranked front offices. Do they have trading cards for front office guys? Or how’s about stats on the back of the card? You know, blown trades, botched signings, best double talk? Johnny would possibly be the all time leader in the last category…
They probably only take into consideration what happens at the major league level. And the Cards were dormant during the off season.
Did you notice what team in the Central was left off this list as well? They had a pretty big trade this offseason and a couple of FA signing. I guess they don’t think much of their front office and highest paid managers ability.
They probably only take into consideration what happens at the major league level. And the Cards were dormant during the off season.
I don’t think this ranking is soley based on the offseason. The article mentiond that the Cardinals were left off of the list in last year’s rankings also, which pre-dated the 2024-25 offseason.
It is easier to be a good front office when you have higher revenue than your peers. But then this list looks to take in to account general team success relative to revenue, at least to some respect.
The Braves are struggling out of the gate. I wonder if they are a little over-rated, at least for now. Speaking of the Braves, anyone can be an owner of their club. I had some Braves stock in my investment portfolio for awhile, but the second half of last year when stocks were going bonkers I boosted my cash balance and sold all my Braves stock. It wasn’t much – I only had a handful of shares.
….. stats on the back of the card? You know, blown trades, botched signings, best double talk?
The RTIRH stat killed Johnny’s ranking. You get tagged with the RTIRH label if you jettison three players in short order who quickly move on to win LCS MVPs for other teams. RTIRH = recognizing talent is real hard.
There’s no defense for this particular front office. They’re dead last and it isn’t close. Bill got rich but his refusal to recognize the decline of this organization is what has put the team where they are. And it’s more than just Mo’s failures. They better get used to a vacant stadium, because they’ve alienated a huge percentage of the fan base. And their failures and frivolous handing out of ntc’s have prevented them from starting a proper re-build. I will give them credit for having a gaggle of players that could possibly be above average in the near future. But there’s just as many who don’t belong on a major league roster or have no chance to be here when we finally get this thing turned over. The final act of malfeasance would be getting no assetts in return for their fa and repetitive roster spots with any value. I also give them credit for investing in player development and bringing in some fresh faces. But that should never have had to happen. They failed to maintain their assets.
It seems in some ways GM’s, or now we have POBO’s, are similar to American presidents in that they often have good first terms, and poor second terms.
Mo was a good GM early on, and not so good these latter years. Walt was kind of that way, as was Whitey.
Bing Devine was real good in his first go ‘round as Cardinal GM from the late ‘50s to 1964. But his second tenure from 1968 into the 1970s was abysmal.
BikeMike I think you hit on something here that you see in the world of leadership a lot whether that is in business or politics or sports. We all have strengths and weaknesses. And sometimes those strengths are a perfect fit for that moment in time. But then if we continue on in the same role the situation changes and our weaknesses can get augmented. I think this is the case with Mo. He was perfect for the role when the role came to him. But baseball changed and while he may have evolved a little, he really pretty much stayed who he was. There aren’t really any great GMs or even team managers for all situations. You just need the right one at the right time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.