When Dodgers owner Peter O'Malley offered Fred Claire the
general manager's job in April 1987, Claire accepted on one
condition. Says Claire, "I said, 'Peter, I've got to have
complete responsibility, because if they run me out of town, I
want to be sure they run me out for the right reasons.'"
O'Malley agreed and, says Claire, never once second-guessed him
in the next 11 years in which O'Malley owned the team.
So imagine Claire's dismay in May when the Dodgers' new Fox
ownership negotiated the Mike Piazza trade and didn't bother to
tell Claire until the deal was done. When team president Bob
Graziano phoned Claire to tell him of the trade, the stunned
general manager told Graziano he planned to resign. Claire
reconsidered but was fired a month later, ending the longest
reign of any active major league G.M.
Claire's story is symbolic of the diminished stature of the
general manager. In recent seasons, then Yankees G.M. Bob Watson
watched team owner George Steinbrenner execute personnel
decisions, and Baltimore G.M. Pat Gillick found some of his
deals blocked by owner Peter Angelos. "You used to have G.M.'s
who were with a team forever, like Jim Campbell [with Detroit],
Harry Dalton [with Milwaukee] and Frank Cashen [with Baltimore
and later the Mets]," says Florida general manager Dave
Dombrowski. "But as time goes on, baseball continues to become a
business-entertainment industry, and the G.M.'s job becomes more
demanding. You have to deal much more with budgets, long-term
contracts, more ownership involvement. Back in the '70s you were
just the baseball guy."
"We're all accountable, and the price of winning has risen,"
says Minnesota general manager Terry Ryan. "Twenty-five years
ago, if you came in last place, the owner might say, 'O.K.,
we'll regroup.' But those days are gone."
Given the experiences of Claire, Gillick and Watson, SI asked
baseball's general managers the following question: "Would you
rather be the G.M. of a team with unlimited resources and
meddling ownership, or the G.M. of a team that guarantees you
control over all baseball decisions but has limited resources
and the prospect of competing for a championship only every four
or five years?"
It is a sign of the backlash against intrusive owners that of
the 24 G.M.'s who responded, 14 voted for control of all
baseball decisions, while only eight voted for unlimited
resources. (Two abstained.)
Says one large-market National League general manager who voted
for control, "If ownership has an unlimited budget and says, 'We
want to win,' you can put together the best club on paper and it
doesn't guarantee you're going to win. You don't want to have
somebody looking over your shoulder every second, because not
everything that a general manager does is going to turn out
perfect."
But at least one American League G.M. who is hamstrung by a
small budget feels differently. "I'd like to believe if I had
the resources, I could build a winner," he says. "I'd rather go
to the park every day knowing I had a chance to win. If I could
do that, I'd roll the dice with the owners."
Says Claire, who has seen both sides, "The job has changed so
much that even a guy with 30 years in an organization might get
fired. You better win, and you better say and do the right
things. And you better hold on to your hat, because it's going
to be a rocky ride."
Tell us what you think. Sound off on the CNN/SI Message Boards.
Issue date: July 13, 1998
|
|
|
