With the current search for a new general manager many Angels fans are optimistic.
But I was also optimistic when Tony Reagins was hired. At that time I realized Mike Scioscia may have control/input of many personnel decisions and at that time I would have trusted every Mike Scioscia decision. Now there are many more chinks in the Scioscia proverbial armor, especially when it comes to personnel decisions.
Many posters/commenter's on this site and others have called for the firing of Scioscia. I for one appreciate the things Scioscia has done for this franchise, I like the style of baseball the Angels play and have played under Scioscia. Even though he has made mistakes (it is always easier to second guess a manager after the game is played), has his idiosyncrasies, and can be extremely stubborn, he has always gotten more out of his teams than anyone ever expected. Mike Scioscia was one of the reasons why my father stopped being a Dodger fan and
started being an Angels fan. My Dad always reminisces about how classy the Dodger organization used to be, and how there was a Dodger way of playing baseball from the majors to the lowest team in the minors. In my opinion Mike Scioscia is one of the factors that has made the Angels such a great franchise, and I would like him to continue to be the Angels manager.
Sorry that was my Scioscia tangent, now back to Reagins. I was bored with Stoneman and I wanted some change. Just like when everyone starts a new job, there is optimism abound. I knew Reagins did not have much baseball experience, but I had trusted that Arte had hired the right man for the job. I am the type of person who would rather
give someone new a chance, instead of hiring a retread with old ideas. The problem was Reagins turned out to be a crappy GM (as documented on other areas of this site). We now have come full circle to being optimistic about our potentially new GM. But for every Pat Gillick there is a Bowden. For every Alex Anthopoulos there is a J.P. Ricciardi.
So what does our potential new GM need to be successful?
My thoughts are:
1) Able to properly evaluate personnel based on observation, scouting, and advanced sabermetrics.
2) Be able to negotiate contracts with players and their agents.
3) To properly evaluation a team's strengths and weaknesses and have a plan that would address said weakness without mortgaging the future of the organization.
4) Have a strong personality to stand up to Mike Scioscia when necessary.
5) Have an understanding of what it takes to win a division and a world series.
Which got me thinking. Who would be a good GM for the Angels?
(This is where the post turns to bullshit, but a very small part of me thinks it is a good idea)
What about Scott Boras.
Seriously. Just think about it for a moment.
(He would obviously never severe ties and give up his agency)
If Darth Vader can give up the dark side, so can Scott Boras.
Imagine when Mike Scioscia wakes up in the morning and reads a text from Lyle Spencer saying that Mathis was DFA'd. Mike Scioscia grabs his keys and starts running to the car. Before he gets there the
doorbell rings. It's an overnight package from Scott Boras. In the package is a binder with a 100 pages on why Jeff Mathis sucks. Scioscia rushes down to Angels stadium to try to save Premium from being unemployed. When he gets there he is greeted with a PowerPoint presentation on why Jeff Mathis is the worst player in baseball. Scioscia then puffs his chest and stares down Scot Boras.
But wait. The unexpected happens. Scott Boras makes Scioscia blink first. When Mike Scioscia takes a piss, Scott Boras pisses further. When Mike Scoiscia says to Scott "I want you to trade Mike Napoli" Scott in turn would say "It is your job to win with the players you have, it is my job to formulate a roster with the best chance of winning"
Scott Boras became such a successful agent because he was able to prepare more than the GM's. He uses every tool available to make his clients look good (he knows his clients deficiencies he just does not
point them out) but by default he also becomes good at truly evaluating players.
Who better to negotiate a contract than Scott Boras?
Do you think Scott Boras would get fleeced in a trade? I think not.
Would Scott Boras show up late to the winter meetings? Definitely not.
Scott Boras is a baseball man through and through. He has the guts and the cajones to stand up the Mike Scioscia.
He seems like the type of person who would draft the best player available and then convince them that it is in their best interest to sign with his team for this amount of money.
I mean he really doesn't need any more money. He wouldn't even have to move.
Maybe he is ready for the next challenge of his life, which is building the Angels into perennial World Series champions.
I am just trying to think outside the box here.