Red Reporter: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Seven Questions on Walt Jocketty with lboros

Yesterday I asked lboros from Viva El Birdos to give us a Cardinals fan's perspective on Walt Jocketty's downfall in St. Louis as well as what made him successful while he was there.  Being the good guy that he is, lboros obliged.  I want to thank him for taking the time to give some rather extensive answers.  I didn't ask him every question that I had, but I feel like we get a pretty good idea of why Jocketty left St. Louis and what fans thought of him towards the end.

Also, at the bottom post there are two links to an evaluation of Jocketty that lboros did at Viva El Birdos back in February that is definitely worth the read.  Thanks lboros!

What is your general impression of Jocketty's style?  Do you trust him?  Did you find yourself scratching your head a lot with his moves?  Was there anything in particular that frustrated you about his methods?  Anything that puts him head-and-shoulders above most general managers?

When he was fired, I characterized Jocketty as a big-game hunter --- “he was like de niro's character in The Deer Hunter, known for taking down his prey with one shot. he tracks without haste, without worry, seemingly without doubt. others might cover twice as much ground, but it's wasted effort, all for show --- they chase dead ends, squander rounds on wild shots, and lose kills they might otherwise have got. this guy just trudges along with his rifle dangling at his shoulder and his senses open to the world --- doesn't hurry, doesn't call attention to himself in any way, just surveys the field and waits for his opening.”

In that post, I quickly reviewed Jocketty’s incredible track record in the trade market. Between 1997 and 2002 he traded for an entire infield full of all-stars (McGwire, Vina, Renteria, and Rolen), plus Jim Edmonds, Darryl Kile, and Woody Williams. The best players he gave up for that package were a couple of so-so closers (Braden Looper and Jose Jimenez), an ok 2bman (Adam Kennedy), and a good 2bman (Placido Polanco). But a few things changed after 2002. First, the Moneyball era began: Advanced metrics and production-per-dollar analysis became more prevalent throughout baseball, and Jocketty’s trade opportunities dried up --- there were fewer teams he could outsmart. Second, the St. Louis ownership maxed out the payroll. Most of the players on the list above were acquire-and-sign additions --- with the lone exception of Renteria, they were all acquired in the last year of their contracts (which is why they were available for so little talent) and then signed to multimillion-dollar extensions. By 2005 the team had risen to #6 in big-league payroll, so this approach wasn’t as readily available to Walt. And finally, the Cardinal farm system stopped producing players that other teams wanted --- well, except for Dan Haren and Daric Barton. Jocketty got horribly burned in that trade (for Mark Mulder), and it really illustrated how the landscape had changed. His formula no longer worked. He could no longer get star players on the cheap and then sign them to extensions; he had to pay full price for them talentwise. That trade occurred in December 2004; he never made another significant trade.


How would you rate his drafts?  He looks like he's had some success in later rounds, but his top picks haven't done much recently.  Is there a clear strategy that has led to this?

I’m not a draft expert, so I’ll answer the question this way: Jocketty’s weakness with respect to the draft / player development was neglect. He didn’t place a lot of emphasis on it, and neither did the Cardinal organization for a number of years. The Triple A roster came to be regarded as a taxi squad for the big-league club ---- a place to stash ex-big leaguers like Wilson Delgado and Timo Perez in case there was a run of injuries. On his watch the team did produce four star-quality players --- Matt Morris, Ankiel, Drew, and Pujols --- but only one (Morris) truly reflected drafting acumen. Ankiel and Drew were pricey Boras signings (ie, everybody wanted them but only the Cardinals were willing to pay the price), and Pujols was a bolt from the blue --- a 13th-rounder who paid unexpected dividends. Producing players for the big-league roster was a secondary function of the farm system under Walt / Tony; its primary role was to produce tradeable commodities.


Would you say it was his plan that drove the team or La Russa's?  Gunn sort of implies that Jocketty was trying to play to La Russa/Duncan's strengths.  Would you agree or would you say that they just had similar philosophies?

I think it was a hand in glove thing. All three guys saw eye to eye in a lot of respects, but particularly this one --- they were aggressive about playing to win now. Jocketty trusted those guys quite a bit: If they said they had a hole, Jock would go out and plug it.


Knowing what we kind of know about Dusty Baker and what you've seen with Jocketty, how would you expect them to meld together?  Do you see similarities or differences in their styles?

Interesting question. Baker’s run of success with the Giants (1993-2002) was very similar to Jocketty’s run of success in St. Louis. The partings were similar too, in a couple of respects: Both men left feeling underappreciated by their owners, and both left just as the veterans on their rosters were evolving from potent late-prime players into overpaid past-prime ones. How will they work together? That’s hard for me to say, but the thing I’ll be watching is their handling of the kids. How will they try to extract max value out of Bailey / Bruce / Cueto et al? --- develop ’em, or trade ’em for established value? If I were a Reds fan, I’d want Walt / Dusty to take the long view, as the Indians did when they had a glut of young talent a few years back --- break the rookies in, give them a few years to hit their stride, and try to build a lasting contender.


As an outsider, it looked to me like Cardinals fans turned on Jocketty pretty quickly.  What would you say was the cause of this?  Or would you say that most fans still wanted Jocketty around this season?

I wanted Jocketty to stay and La Russa to go, and I knew many fans (not necessarily a majority) felt the same way. It worked out the other way around. To the extent that people grew disenchanted with him, it was partly due to this: It became clear that Jocketty was obstructing the organization’s need to get younger and more player-development oriented. Jocketty opposed the front-office rise of Jeff Luhnow, an MBA who never played baseball and didn’t work his way up through the ranks; when Luhnow became the Cards’ head of player development in late 2006, displacing longtime Jocketty ally Bruce Manno, the organization split down the middle. A story came out in the Post-Dispatch on the last weekend of the 2007 regular season in which unnamed figures in the Cardinals’ minor-league hierarchy said they were afraid to be seen talking to Luhnow or his underlings, because there’d be reprisals against them if word got back to Jocketty. Two days later, Jocketty was fired.

The Mulder trade also caused a lot of people to question Jocketty’s sanity (and not just the usual second-guessers --- a decent chunk of Cardinal nation opposed the trade at the time it went down). And then Walt compounded the problem by re-signing Mulder as a free agent after his shoulder surgery. It was as if Jocketty couldn’t admit he was wrong about Mulder --- as if the re-signing was motivated by concern over his personal reputation, rather than the team’s needs.


I don't know a whole lot about the Cardinals ownership.  Were they the driving force behind the team, or do they sit in the shadows and let Jocketty do what Jocketty do?

Not an either-or thing. The owners were a big, unacknowledged part of Jocketty’s success. When he took over, the team was in the bottom half of MLB teams in terms of payroll; by the time he left they were consistently in the top 10 and rose to as high as 6th. Jocketty deserves credit for picking the players; if Jocketty said a certain player was worth the money, the owners generally paid it. Not always, but most of the time.

Seriously, what's the likelihood that Tony La Russa will be working with the Reds in some capacity after his contract is up in 2009?

I wouldn’t bet on it. But nobody can predict what Tony La Russa will do next, or why.

4 recs | Comment 29 comments | Add your comment

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Wow

Nice to get a little perspective from the enemy. I wondered how much truth there was to the rumor about the SABR guy (Jeff Luhnow). I wouldn’t put it past a Cincy organization to chase an obsolete formula that worked in the past but is no longer relevant. But what if they do take the long view? I’m wondering if that’s even being considered. If so, it again begs the question, why jettison Krivsky so quickly?

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. -Tom Waits and others

by Pops Daniels on Apr 26, 2008 9:57 AM EDT reply reply   0 recs

One thing I'd point out

is that it could be that Luhnow just wasn’t a Jocketty guy. I have a hard time believing that Jocketty, who worked with Sandy Alderson for many years in Oakland, would be flat out anti-sabermetrics. I guess I’m trying to take the more optimistic view that it was more a personal conflict rather than Jocketty versus a movement. Then again, lboros has had contact with Luhnow in some fashion (see the link in his first answer), so maybe he has a few more details than came out publicly?

You're drowning in the past, Mike, and I've got your life jacket right here. It's called the 80s and it's gonna be around forever.

by Slyde on Apr 26, 2008 10:09 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Yeah

From the way he put it, it sounds like the problem wasn’t so much sabermetrics, as that Luhnow didn’t “pay his dues.” MBA, never played baseball, didn’t work his way up through the ranks. You could see an old-school guy resenting that.

Kinda like my office, where the old guys who worked their way up over years suddenly find their new boss is a college grad young enough to be their kid, or worse yet, a girl, and don’t take it well…

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Apr 26, 2008 12:00 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Ha

I’ve seen that one. It was pretty good. Not enough Scarlett Johansson though.

You're drowning in the past, Mike, and I've got your life jacket right here. It's called the 80s and it's gonna be around forever.

by Slyde on Apr 26, 2008 12:05 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

i just finished the reading assignment for the book club...

I must say, after the first 24 pages, i’m very excited about the rest of it.

Zulu Cannibal Giants…wow

In the end, life and business are about human connections. And computers are about trying to murder you in a lake. And to me the choice is easy.

by chandrathan on Apr 26, 2008 10:25 AM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Excellent read

Thanks, Slyde and Iboros

Brendon, there's nothing wrong with lying to women. Or the government. Or parents. Or God.

by Man Mountain on Apr 26, 2008 10:25 AM EDT reply reply   0 recs

i like the cooperation between the different blogs

unfortunately, he doesn’t really offer any insight that hasn’t been shared here by our quality posters.

In the end, life and business are about human connections. And computers are about trying to murder you in a lake. And to me the choice is easy.

by chandrathan on Apr 26, 2008 10:29 AM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Any?

Brendon, there's nothing wrong with lying to women. Or the government. Or parents. Or God.

by Man Mountain on Apr 26, 2008 10:40 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

i would say

that even if you think the summation of his thoughts is “what Slyde said” it still goes to back up and further solidify my opinions and thoughts of where this team is going. it may be just that (though i disagree), but its still worth the time and effort. thanks Slyde and Iboros. glad to see you guys can stop talking to computers and books long enough to make contact with another human being. even if it is in the cyberverse…

Abraham Lincoln said that if you're a racist, I will invade you with the north.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Apr 26, 2008 10:52 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Thanks, Viva lboros!

Very interesting to see just what plan Jocketty is going to put into place. If he tries to replicate what he did in St. Louis, it sounds like Castellini has to be willing to significantly raise payroll. I don’t think that Bob is timid when it comes to spending cash, and it would probably be a nice change for him to spend money on an All-Star or impact player rather than eating a hefty contract of a Mike Stanton or Rheal Cormier or Juan Castro or Eric Milton…

by Brendanukkah on Apr 26, 2008 12:14 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

i read somewhere

in the turmoil of the Krivsky ousting that he got the A’s to pay the Cormier contract in the Deno deal. so as it turns out, we got McBeth, Jukich, and 7 figures for Deno. thats pretty impressive. the weird thing is that Krivsky said he didnt disclose the dollar amount out of modesty. i wish i could find a link, but i cant. thats freaking nuts. i mean, what GM would make a deal and not tell anyone about the most valuable piece he got in return? was he just lying? i dont know man…

Abraham Lincoln said that if you're a racist, I will invade you with the north.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Apr 26, 2008 2:02 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I saw that

I didn’t understand it at the time, though.

It was on Fay’s blog:

There was one thing Krivsky wanted to set straight, and that was about reliever Rheal Cormier. Cormier was designated for assignment early last season after a poor start, and was reportedly owed about $2.25 million.

"Just so you all know, there was a whole bunch of money in one transaction that paid for Rheal Cormier’s contract," Krivsky said.

"I guess I can come forward with that right now. There was $2.08 million in one transaction that paid for his contract specifically, so if you can wipe that one off my ledger, I’d appreciate that," Krivsky said.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Apr 26, 2008 3:04 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

yeah

why the hell did he not come forward with this at the time? the dude is secretive to a fault, but when everyone was kicking him in the gut over the Cormier deal and all the money wasted on lefty relievers in general he could have gotten alot of cred for that. i mean, if i had known that from the beginning i know my respect for the guy would have dramatically increased. that is one hell of a great deal that now has to swing from the bad side of the ledger to the good side. unreal…

Abraham Lincoln said that if you're a racist, I will invade you with the north.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Apr 26, 2008 3:13 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

This is great stuff

Particularly like the answer to the first question. Kind of reminds me of Joseph Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies. Strategies that are remarkably effective at first eventually lose their punch, because “the low-hanging fruit is picked first.” The cost of your strategy therefore gets higher and higher as time goes by, while your resources to pursue it become exhausted.

Also reminds me of a statistical analysis I read about that claimed managers are most effective in their first three years. Presumably because as outsiders, they can see what’s wrong with the organization, and fix it. Once they’ve been there three years, they are no longer outsiders. They can’t see what’s wrong any more, or if they can, they can’t fix it (or they’d have done it already). I assume the timeline is longer for a GM, but still…it’s probably not good for anyone to stay in one place for too long.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Apr 26, 2008 12:16 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

When do Dusty's three years start?

You're drowning in the past, Mike, and I've got your life jacket right here. It's called the 80s and it's gonna be around forever.

by Slyde on Apr 26, 2008 12:19 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

as soon as he replaces joe girardi

In the end, life and business are about human connections. And computers are about trying to murder you in a lake. And to me the choice is easy.

by chandrathan on Apr 26, 2008 12:22 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

What About the Budget?

One thing that distinguishes Baker’s experience in SF or Jocketty’s in St. Louis and what may or may not happen with the Reds is the size of the budget with each team.

That difference will show up most readily when homegrown players - think Dunn and Harang - have the credentials to attracts big bucks on the market. A team that is unable or unwilling to spend the money to keep those players will always be scrambling.

by justcorbly on Apr 26, 2008 2:33 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Do you consider Harang "homegrown"

because he became an elite starter as a Red?

Brendon, there's nothing wrong with lying to women. Or the government. Or parents. Or God.

by Man Mountain on Apr 26, 2008 6:54 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

It'll be nice to have a fresh face looking at things ...

This Dunn thing has me confused – he puts up numbers, but the number don’t produce wins. And I watch and listen to games, and the guy more times than not strikes out or pops up or walks. People tell me he is valuable. I’m not seeing it. I wonder what Jockety sees.

by Mark T on Apr 26, 2008 11:43 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs

maybe he hasn't produced wins with his numbers in the past

because the pitching has sucked for pretty much since he’s been here? Or maybe it’s because it’s not a one man sport?

Nah, that couldn’t be it. It’s because he strikes out or pops up or walks. And yet has led the team in runs and RBI for 4 straight seasons.

You're drowning in the past, Mike, and I've got your life jacket right here. It's called the 80s and it's gonna be around forever.

by Slyde on Apr 27, 2008 9:20 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

oops, I guess Phillips led the team in runs last year

There I go, just building him up to make him look better than he is.

You're drowning in the past, Mike, and I've got your life jacket right here. It's called the 80s and it's gonna be around forever.

by Slyde on Apr 27, 2008 9:55 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

I think you're over-estimating the impact of one guy

Even if Dunn went beserk last year in the run production department and drove in 120 (which would’ve been third in the league), that’s only a few more wins. When you win only 72 games, your problems are much more extensive than the RISP figures of one guy (and his weren’t bad).

by ken on Apr 27, 2008 9:56 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

One thing that I think you CAN expect.

Hey guys, just dropping over here from El Birdos. One thing I think you CAN expect from WJ is that he almost always (Mulder excepted) makes very shrewd trades if he is letting young talent go for a veteran. He is a veritable master at filling out a roster with good veteran players.

As for the Mulder trade, I still believe that the A’s were witholding some sort of injury information about him. They have been accused of that extensively in the past. Not that WJ shouldn’t have discovered it before the trade, but I believe the A’s were a bit devious there.

Baseball's only fun if you're playing it, watching it, or thinking about it.

by Eckstreem on Apr 28, 2008 11:21 AM EDT reply reply   0 recs

Thanks for the insight

I hadn’t thought about the hiding of an injury, but it seems plausible. The Reds have experience with that in recent history too with Gary Majewski. I think it’s interesting that he hasn’t made a significant deal since then. I wonder if the experience made him a little more gun shy.

You're drowning in the past, Mike, and I've got your life jacket right here. It's called the 80s and it's gonna be around forever.

by Slyde on Apr 28, 2008 11:48 AM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Moral of the story

don’t trade with Billy Beane unless you’re trading for Aaron Harang

by bobestes on Apr 28, 2008 1:32 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

The crappy thing is:

(This being from another Cardinals fan who decided to check out what lboros had to say over here).

Anyway, the crappy thing is this:

Look at the two trades the A’s made that off-season.
They traded Hudson to the Braves and Mulder to the Cardinals.

If you look at the players the Cardinals gave up, they’ve all done pretty well.
Look at the players the Braves gave up, most of them have struggled mightily.

Apparently, trading for Aaron Harang OR Tim Hudson is good.

by mtalken on Apr 28, 2008 1:50 PM EDT to parent up reply reply   0 recs

Walt's own words

He said that pre-luxury tax he was able to make “sneaky trades” that he couldn’t make anymore.

I think that now thanks to moneyball 2.0 people have to get bang for their buck and/or bankrupt their farm system for a shot at the title. Personally I think he just never adapted post-luxury tax. In his reign, he didn’t need to be a master sabr guy because he could get obvious top shelf talent that other teams couldn’t afford to keep.

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Apr 28, 2008 3:57 PM EDT reply reply   0 recs


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Cincinnati Reds.
Ad-medium-smq

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Griffey

Recent FanPosts

Small
BA predicts Reds to pick Crow.
Small
Attendance
Happyhanukkah_small
Hug-of-War of Ohio
Small
How about Holliday?
Small
One ticket to tonight's game
Redandblue_small
Volquez profile
Anime_small
Jeff Keppinger
African15b_small
.410 Good Buddy
Yachtrock01_small
This is JEOPARDY: Semifinals (SPOILERS)

Post New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Ad-banner-faketeams
Site Meter