You're missing a big piece of the story. He resigned to go write for espn.com.

Here's the link.

He resigned to go write for espn.com.

Unfortunato...it will be mostly ESPN Insider biz.

What's the real dirt behind this? Anybody know? I only ask because just about everything I ever read by Law on BP exuded this "I'm Keith Law, and you're not" air, which is probably a lot better suited for ESPN than with a real life baseball job.

Plus, he welched on a bet he made with me about the Orioles' attendance going up in 2002, and he still owes me a copy of the latest BP annual, the rat....

Maybe he just didn't know what the #### he was doing. Let's faceit, writing a column for BPro isn't exactly the West Point for aspiring GM's.

If the money's good and you can see that your current organization is going to continue to just tread water in the marketplace might as well jump ship. 'Cause if J.P. goes then his right-hand man gets the axe as well.

What's the real dirt behind this? Anybody know?

He's going to ESPN as a senior baseball writer, covering all levels of baseball. He'll be writing for ESPN.com and ESPN deportes, as well as doing some radio and TV.

Could be a family thing too. This way he gets to move back to the States full time, and probably has a more flexible schedule to be with his kids (if he has any).

Special Assistant General Manager.

Special Assistant to the General Manager.

Could be a family thing too.

[in Ali G voice] Maybe he didn't speak Canada?

So how did the Law Regime fare? Can he be split from JP Ricciardi in examing his progress? If so, on what criteria.

It would seem that Law's stated duties would not cover success and failures in the draft. It would not seem that it would cover promotions/demotions, but that is possible.

It looks like acquisition from other means Maj.L. and Min.L. free agents and trades would be subject to examination.

Plus, he welched on a bet

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's "Welshed on a bet", not welched. It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped. Although, come to think of it, I welshed on a bet with Matt Welch last year, so either one's probably acceptable.

It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped.

I once came up with a sentence that could offend six different nationalities or ethnicities at once: "That Indian giver got my Irish up by Gypping me and Welshing on our Dutch treat, and he got away Scot-free." The English have been particularly adept at insulting their nearest neighbours through language.

Plus, he welched on a bet

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's "Welshed on a bet", not welched. It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped.

Probably my subconscious PC tendencies, which I'm always trying to suppress, not always successfully. I think also that I've always pronounced it as if it were a "c."

So how did the Law Regime fare? Can he be split from JP Ricciardi in examing his progress? If so, on what criteria.

I haven't seen anything from the Toronto F.O. to suggest that you can split his work from theirs. (Not saying that he didn't have specific responsibilities, just that I don't know what we'll ever really know what they were).

The only comment I remember JP making about him is that he (Law) was always trying to convince JP and the rest of the F.O. to use fielding stats, but they preferred to use scouting to assess fielding.

I didn't read alot of BP back in the day, but what did Law write about there? I have a vague sense that he did some of the business writing along with baseball evaluation stuff.

It would seem that Law's stated duties would not cover success and failures in the draft.

I'm pretty sure that Keith was helping actively with the drafts, I recall him telling a friend who interviewed him for a high school project that he was working on the draft at the time.

I didn't read alot of BP back in the day, but what did Law write about there? I have a vague sense that he did some of the business writing along with baseball evaluation stuff.

He wrote the Imbalance Sheet, and he was also their fantasy baseball writer for a while. He also wrote fantasy stuff for ESPN, which I'm pretty sure how I got to BP in the first place.

I wonder if this is why Keith made an appearance here over the weekend. Lots of free time!

I didn't read alot of BP back in the day, but what did Law write about there? I have a vague sense that he did some of the business writing along with baseball evaluation stuff.

I thought that that was Jonah Keri. He daylights at Investor's Business Daily. Which I thought was odd, because it seems to be more technical analysis oriented than most other biz publications.

I wonder if this is why Keith made an appearance here over the weekend. Lots of free time!

If he is writing for ESPN, being here is column ideas, and according to their editors, they don't even have to attribute what they take verbatim.

Maybe it was Buck Canyon's antics that made Keith split...

I know...I'd move as far away as possible.

...according to their editors, they don't even have to attribute what they take verbatim...

Really? Even if we all start inserting little (c) symbols* in our posts? What if Jim decided to add something to the TOS about an implied assignment of copyright?

[* I'm sure someone will tell me how to code the copyright symbol any second now.]

Link. Not much more than we already know, though.

Really? Even if we all start inserting little (c) symbols* in our posts? What if Jim decided to add something to the TOS about an implied assignment of copyright?


I've never seen anyone perform a taking that would rise to the level of a copyright violation. What I have seen is facts taken verbatim, and ideas taken verbatim, with no attribution.

Neither of those would rise to copyright infringement, but they do present a question of journalistic ethics, including the subject of plagiarism.

We had a long thread on this with mixed results among the audience. Two journalists posted, Schoenfeld and Bootsy, who both thought it was fair game. I was going to do a mass email poll, and I admit, I was negligent. I got around to asking two journalistic professors and got the standard "depends", but also an indication that "it does not sound like something we would do without attribution."

I thought that MLB had taken quotes from here verbatim and used them to sell MLBTV, but I didn't know that anything had been stolen for ESPN articles or the like.

Re: Keith Law. It's seemed to me for a while, from the odd comment I've seen in the Toronto Star, that Law doesn't seem to have a lot of traction with the Jays front office. Regardless of what you think about the Jays moves the past few years, the general reaction here was that they weren't great moves. Considering that a lot of people here approach things from a similar angle as the BPro guys (and presumably Law), it wouldn't surprise me if he just got tired of it. I emailed some of the choice comments from the Schoeneweis signing thread here to a friend (early 2005) and looking back, there was a lot of speculation then that he simply didn't fit the organization.

BL:

"Mass email poll"?

Awww, you know about the validity of those electronic polls.................

Couldn't resist.

I've never seen anyone perform a taking that would rise to the level of a copyright violation. What I have seen is facts taken verbatim, and ideas taken verbatim, with no attribution.

Neither of those would rise to copyright infringement, but they do present a question of journalistic ethics, including the subject of plagiarism.

I don't know the specific instances to which you're referring, so I'm not going to comment on them. In general, I'd say the level of attribution should depend on how much original thought or effort went into producing the facts or ideas that were used. If someone looked up some basic stats on bb-ref or Retrosheet, I don't think that specific attribution is necessary once those facts have been confirmed, unless it required the specific recollection of the person to know where to find the stats in the first place.

It happens somewhat often that someone here makes an observation about the White Sox that I mention on my blog. I write it in such a way that the reader knows the idea/observation didn't originate with me. I link back to the thread (often a Game Chatter) if the idea/observation/thread was what generated the blog item in the first place. But if I was thinking along the same lines while watching the game and someone made an observation that furthered my thought in the same direction in Game Chatter, then I usually just write something along the lines of, "I didn't like X move that Ozzie Guillén made, and, further, as someone mentioned to me online...."

I don't know the specific instances to which you're referring

I don't want to "rehash"

In this instance and IIRC, there was an initial observation by Soft Johnny that was rather unique. That observation made it into a Simmons column. Simmons even originally acknwledged he received the idea from an assistant editor. IOW, Simmons did attribute to the same level that you would have attributed.

That was discussed, and Schoenfeld actually admitted in the thread, that we was the assistant editor, he did get the idea and the stats from SJohnny, he validated the stats independently and he didn't attribute it, "because he didn't have too."

That created a pretty long thread.

The long thread which Backlasher mentioned is here.

If he is writing for ESPN, being here is column ideas, and according to their editors, they don't even have to attribute what they take verbatim.

Well played my friend, well played

The long thread which Backlasher mentioned is here.

I sort of remember that thread now. I don't recall if I posted in it or not. I have to check now.

I only ask because just about everything I ever read by Law on BP exuded this "I'm Keith Law, and you're not" air

I never got that. I've exchanged emails with Keith now and then, and he seems like a decent guy. I wish him the best on ESPN, though I'll never read it if its insider.

Nothing against people who want to charge for their internet content, but there's just too much stuff available for free, and if I read any more I probably couldn't keep my job.

So how did the Law Regime fare? Can he be split from JP Ricciardi in examing his progress?

I don't think so, unless you have detailed inside knowledge of the Blue Jay front office. From where I sit, I can only judge Ricciardi. If his assistants are brilliant, Ricciardi gets credit for bringing in geniuses. If they screw up, he gets blamed for hiring dolts.

I'd place JP squarely in the middle of major league GM's. He inherited a 3rd place team, and he's consistently put up 3rd place teams. He reduced payroll, and kept the team in third, then he increased payroll, and maintained 3rd place.

In his division, 3rd place is tough to avoid, as the Yankees and Red Sox are really rich and the O's and D-Rays are really crappy. So he's done what he should be expected to do. No more, no less.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's "Welshed on a bet", not welched. It's an ethnic slur, like saying you got gyped. Although, come to think of it, I welshed on a bet with Matt Welch last year, so either one's probably acceptable.

It's Welched. Which is still an ethnic slur, but as one of Primer's few people of Welsh descent, it's pretty much on the level of Notre Dame's Fighting Irish, which is "So?".

That's one thread I hoped never to see again.

I never got that. I've exchanged emails with Keith now and then, and he seems like a decent guy.

Same experience here.

I too exchanged emails with Keith once or twice, and he seemed like a really nice guy.

I've never had the least bit of a problem with Keith and he goes well back into the usenet days.

Go back to Cadwygan, you coc oen!

The most shocking thing about that old thread is BL's use of (a form of) my name.

That Indian giver got my Irish up by Gypping me and Welshing on our Dutch treat, and he got away Scot-free."

While leaving you with the French disease?

Hope has nothing to do with it, Szym.

I too exchanged emails with Keith once or twice, and he seemed like a really nice guy.

Man, I feel so worthless. I always thought I was the only one.

From what I know of Keith, I'm guessing that what happened was that he wanted the Jays to pick up a hot young prospect out of Free Country USA called Homestar Runner. When JP refused, undoubtedly discouraged by the prospect's lack of visible arms, that was the last straw.

I never got that. I've exchanged emails with Keith now and then, and he seems like a decent guy.

Same experience here.

I too exchanged emails with Keith once or twice, and he seemed like a really nice guy.

I've never had the least bit of a problem with Keith and he goes well back into the usenet days.

So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits.

I don't want to "rehash"

Really? Could've fooled me the way you're always bringing it up.

Really? Could've fooled me

Fooling you is not a hard thing to do.

So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits.

And your point would be....? These comments were in response to Andy's perception of work on BP. Pretty much everyone who responded said that he doesn't come across that way in personal communications. Seeing as how none of us are hiring him, nor are we listed as references on his job applications, our opinions of his character, background, and work habits are meaningless.

Why you don't just come out and tell us what you're getting at, kevin. Stop beating around the bush. So far, from your two posts on the subject, you appear to harbor some anti-Law bias. Tell us, what interactions have you had with him that have led to your apparent dislike?

Why you don't just come out and tell us what you're getting at, kevin.

I'm questioning the supposition that you can know someone by a few superficial emails and postings via the internet.

Stop beating around the bush.So far, from your two posts on the subject, you appear to harbor some anti-Law bias.Tell us, what interactions have you had with him that have led to your apparent dislike?

What bush? I thought it apparent from my postings that I was making it clear that I don't know Keith Law from Adam, and neither does anyone else here, so it should be no surprise at all that he might have failed at his job in Toronto, as being a baseball writer for BPro is zero preparation for the job he was tasked with by the Blue Jays.

That's one thread I hoped never to see again.

Weren't you in IRC a few weeks ago (a month?) when it was brought up again? I know spivey, SJ, BL and I were all there, amongst others. A regular Algonquin roundtable.

I don't want to "rehash"

Well played.

I had some exchanges with him on Usenet (dating back to the mid 1990s) and email and remember thinking that he was rather pompous and his writing wasn't among the best that the "Golden Age" of BP had to offer, IMHO. When he was hired by the Blue Jays, my reaction was that he wouldn't be the first BP staffer that I would hire if I were a GM--but that's in large part a reflection of the regard that I had/have for some others at BP.

Best of luck to him at ESPN.com, but if it's not available free, then I'll most likely never read it.

being a baseball writer for BPro is zero preparation for the job he was tasked with by the Blue Jays

That's something of an overstatement, don't you think? Would you say that a financial analyst for a particular industry would have zero preparation for a job with a company within that industry?

I had some email exchanges with Keith the year before he went to Toronto. He always responded to my questions and comments about his articles, and he was cordial and not the tiniest bit arrogant.

This is more than I can say for a few of the other baseball content producers with online audiences.

I had some email exchanges w/Keith as well, but he never really seemed to answer my questions. It was always this crap about some penile enhancement products he had. Every time I requested more details or whatever, he just come back w/a flurry of more emails about how I could finally satisfy my girlfriend, and that despite my telling him over and over that I was married. I found his harping about my "mistress" both presumptuous and rude, in the words of the teacher from Willy Wonka.

So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits.

Way to advance the conversation. For all I know Keith Law sacrifices baby kittens to Chris Truby when noone's looking. All I said was from the limited contact I've had with Keith, he seems like a decent guy.


When he was hired by the Blue Jays, my reaction was that he wouldn't be the first BP staffer that I would hire if I were a GM

He wouldn't even have been the first Keith I would have hired. That would be Woolner. Not a dis to Mr. Law, just that I don't remember off the top of my head any of his articles, where Mr. Woolner came out with some really though provoking research.

What's cool of course is my assumption that when they hired Keith Law, they did so on greater basis than what we rely on when we compare them. Presumably Keith was hired b/c he interviewed well, is bright, etc. Some of this stuff sounds awfully silly, if not resentful.

This is more than I can say for a few of the other baseball content producers with online audiences.

It's okay. You can say Dial's name. It's only if you say it *three* times that he appears.

That's something of an overstatement, don't you think?

No, I don't.

I do like Clay Davenport a lot and would hire him at an entry level position (if I were a GM) with the knowledge that he be given every opportunity to rise through the ranks based on merit and job performance.

But no way do I put someone in a position of responsibility based solely on what they have written on an internet website.

What's cool of course is my assumption that when they hired Keith Law, they did so on greater basis than what we rely on when we compare them. Presumably Keith was hired b/c he interviewed well, is bright, etc.

Wow, what a concept. Imagine if everyone on this thread made that same assumption.

What's cool of course is my assumption that when they hired Keith Law, they did so on greater basis than what we rely on when we compare them. Presumably Keith was hired b/c he interviewed well, is bright, etc. Some of this stuff sounds awfully silly, if not resentful.

I'm sure they did. But, to my knowledge, they didn't necessarily interview the other candidates.

What I find more interesting is the early naughts movement of hiring the sabes and the sabes they chose.

Earlier someone compared it to a financial analyst, and I think that may be apt. Let's take how financial analysts handled the internets in the late 90s. They were buying up stock in internet companies; venture capital was aplenty for internet companies; etc. In many cases, just having ".com" in your corporate name would get you funding even if you had no track record, and no real string of success.

In baseball, you saw people gobbling up sabes. In some cases you wonder if it was just to make sure that some other team didn't have a competitive advantage over them. Based on every thing that Burley ever posted about JP, he doesn't even seem to use/value sabe stuff that much. I honestly don't know.

The truth is you had very little idea what these guys actually did, what sabe stuff they produced, what value it had, and in total what was the positive or negative increase in value.

You have very few tidbits where to piece together the picture. The news releases here indicate that JP liked Law's writing. The hagiographies of Voros indicate that he liked his out of the box thinking (which I presume was the DIPSy stuff).

It doesn't sound like there was ever an effort by the early adopters to figure out what the person was able to do, what value it would provide, and who were the best possible candidates. They played a hunch, and in this game it was a low dollar hunch so it was worth it.

Now, you still see some sabes in the consulting business. mgl actually does slip in some of his work from time to time.

I'm not resentful. I would have never been a candidate, nor would I consider it my "dream job" It would be foolish to even get in a pissing contest over published results even with someone like Vinay, who admits he's not that prolific in doing articles.

The science has grown, and I'd very much to get past the "idiot GM" stuff. There is an output record where we can judge what really has utility. I'd like to know that for my own personal edification. It just seems that much of the output record is hidden.

It may have had a small part to do with his Harvard BA and his CMU MBA, along with his interviews and any personal recommendations JP had received.

Or maybe it was just his usenet posts. That's probably it.

kevin, the "I traded emails with him and he seemed fine" retorts are to this question in #3:

"What's the real dirt behind this? Anybody know? I only ask because just about everything I ever read by Law on BP exuded this "I'm Keith Law, and you're not" air, which is probably a lot better suited for ESPN than with a real life baseball job."

While you may be right about whether Law warranted the job he was given, those replies about email correspondence with Law are pretty damn relevant to the question. Dragging his job worthiness into the mix seems to show you have an axe to grind.

Of course, I agree with your premise that how Law fared in a few email conversations does little to understand who he really is or how good at special asst to the gm he'd be.

No, I don't.

Okay, so how about the (fairly) analogous situation I mentioned? A financial analyst who concentrates on a specific industry. In that job, he will (if he's good, anyway) gain lots of experience in analyzing problems and solutions within that industry. He (or she) will often be recruited by companies within that industry. Would you say that, if he were hired by one of the companies in that industry, his analyst position provides "zero preparation" for his new position?

And if not, what do you see as the differences between the two situations (Law's and the FA) that make you think of them differently?

Presumably Keith was hired b/c he interviewed well, is bright, etc. Some of this stuff sounds awfully silly, if not resentful.

Not really. I think it harkens back to the uproar JP caused when he made another parallel decision to the one of hiring the inexperienced Law as his asst. GM - that of firing his scouts. He was criticized a lot for that, for reasons that now seem all too obvious.

That Law is leaving MLB to work as a writer for ESPN says to me that he failed at his job as a front office executive, and seems to recognize it. People with a future in baseball don't quit their jobs as assistance GMs so they can write for ESPN.

Lincoln didn't become a railsplitter after he opened his law practice.

Okay, so how about the (fairly) analogous situation I mentioned? A financial analyst who concentrates on a specific industry. In that job, he will (if he's good, anyway) gain lots of experience in analyzing problems and solutions within that industry. He (or she) will often be recruited by companies within that industry.

The key word in that analogy is "experience". Writing anything you want to write about with impunity is no kind of preparation for being the asst. GM under conditions where your decisions, philosophies and prejudices will actually be tested under the spotlight of competition, and where you are being opposed by others who might not share your philosophies but nevertheless are beating your ass.

I think it is safe to say that, until this year, the performance of the Blue Jays during the Law era was pretty mediocre.

Dragging his job worthiness into the mix seems to show you have an axe to grind.

My axe isn't with Law alone. See BL's post #58. The internet analogy is quite apt here. Back in the eighties, it was biotech. The street got burned there too.

Whenever you hear of the "next great thing", take it with a grain of salt.

Man, that thread (the SJ/Simmons/HBP thread) is hilarious. I think that BL tilts against windmills sometimes and plays up a "me vs the world" theme in cases where that is overblown, but not in that thread -- I agree 1000% with him. Especially after the first defense "I checked it myself, therefore it didn't need attribution." Oooh boy.

I liked that one too, Kyle.

Rather convenient for Schoenfeld, that.

Not really. I think it harkens back to the uproar JP caused when he made another parallel decision to the one of hiring the inexperienced Law as his asst. GM - that of firing his scouts. He was criticized a lot for that, for reasons that now seem all too obvious.

That's assistant to the general manager, not assistant general manager.

And while JP fired a bunch of old scouts (for example, the Jays had too many guys covering Canada), the never reported part of it is that he also hired some guys to replace many of the ones he'd fired. It's not as though he decided he didn't need scouts because he could look at a spreadsheet and tell you who was a prospect. He evaluated who he had and determined whether or not they were pulling their weight. Maybe that's cruel, but I don't know that it's a bad baseball decision.

That's not the perception of the decision within baseball circles, Paul. There was a thread a while back about scouts vs sabes and that decision by JP was brought up by one of the tobacco spitters as an example of saber-type naivete.

That's not the perception of the decision within baseball circles, Paul.

Whether it's the perception or not doesn't make it fact.

Whether it's the perception or not doesn't make it fact.

Are you saying that Paul has insider information the guys who work as scouts within baseball don't have, Szym?

Yikes. Obviously, I didn't realize you had posted the link in the very first post in the thread, Paul D. Sorry about that.

I think kevin's got a point that writing for ESPN would seem to be a step down from a dream job inside baseball, but it's also possible that, rather than Keith having failed at the job, the job failed him. I remember there being some patronizing hostility toward him ("Rain Man") from some of the baseball people when he first got there. I'd guess he lost a lot more arguments than he won while he was there. Therefore, I don't think there was any such thing as a "Keith Law Era" in Toronto.

That's not the perception of the decision within baseball circles, Paul. There was a thread a while back about scouts vs sabes and that decision by JP was brought up by one of the tobacco spitters as an example of saber-type naivete.

Fair enough. I'll go look through the depths of the internet, see if I can dig anything up.

Earlier someone compared it to a financial analyst, and I think that may be apt. Let's take how financial analysts handled the internets in the late 90s. They were buying up stock in internet companies; venture capital was aplenty for internet companies; etc. In many cases, just having ".com" in your corporate name would get you funding even if you had no track record, and no real string of success.

Wow. I am extremely dismissive of financial analysts, but this isn't a remotely accurate description of their job responsibilities. FA's don't "buy up stock", they make recommendations to people who may or may not "buy up stock". Financial analysts cover public companies (or soon to be public companies), not venture capital investments. They had little to do with how early stage startups were funded during that era. I say this as a current day investment manager and former software company manager that raised funding for multiple startups during the bubble era.

Fair enough. I'll go look through the depths of the internet, see if I can dig anything up.

Right back atcha. I'm having trouble finding any references. I did find some Michael Lewis quotes but he's hardly a disinterested observer.

I'd guess he lost a lot more arguments than he won while he was there.

I thought of that too, HSF. But don't you think now is an odd time for him to be leaving, considering how well the Jays are playing?

My guess is, after last years dismal failure, he lost any juice he might have had within the organization (or without, for that matter) and was not a factor in the off-season decisions, decisions that are now bearing fruit.

So maybe he just decided that he wasn't cut out for this front office thing, that there is a lot more to it than he thought, and that he'd be better off just writing about it, rather than doing it.

It wasn't insider knowledge - the Blue Jays replaced a lot of the scouts they fired.

Free Henry Blodgett!

Wow. I am extremely dismissive of financial analysts, but this isn't a remotely accurate description of their job responsibilities. FA's don't "buy up stock", they make recommendations to people who may or may not "buy up stock". Financial analysts cover public companies (or soon to be public companies), not venture capital investments. They had little to do with how early stage startups were funded during that era. I say this as a current day investment manager and former software company manager that raised funding for multiple startups during the bubble era.


Golly. Geez. Generic Exclamation. I guess those people working for other companies calling themselves "financial analysts" are just lying about their position because you didn't approve their job title. Or maybe they call themselves "portfolio managers" or "trustees" or Special Assistant to the Asst. Guy Who Actually Buys things.

And since Law didn't sign any contracts, but recommended to JP what he should do, I guess the situation isn't analogous at all.

Aside from that very, very, very quibbly gotcha is there a point to advance the discussion? I'm glad you got a chance to post your CV though.

So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits.


Or some sound bites on TV. I mean you don't know a person and you see 10 minutes worth of sound bites on TV that are bad (because as Rob points out in the other thread controversy sells, not compassion).

Boy, that Bonds is a jerk - oh wait:

"So, I take it then that you all believe these virtual interactions with someone you never actually met and have no idea what they are actually like reveals something about their character, background and work habits."

Wow. I am extremely dismissive of financial analysts, but this isn't a remotely accurate description of their job responsibilities. FA's don't "buy up stock", they make recommendations to people who may or may not "buy up stock". Financial analysts cover public companies (or soon to be public companies), not venture capital investments. They had little to do with how early stage startups were funded during that era. I say this as a current day investment manager and former software company manager that raised funding for multiple startups during the bubble era.

OK. But somebody was making decisions to buy up those companies that were really worth nothing. That is the main point that BL was trying to make. He is using the term "Financial analyst", I think, in a very broad definition to mean anyone in a position to authorize financial transactions to invest in or purchase internet companies.

I think maybe you should write Duke's Business School, they describe a financial analyst as:

The financial analyst is a broad classification for an entry-level position that deals with investment management. This career might begin in the CFO's or Treasurer's office. The financial analyst's responsibilities may include: analysis of the firm's foreign exchange and interest rate hedging strategies, valuation of potential acquisitions (for outright purchase or equity investment), assessing the credit worthiness of certain bonds, and using accounting data to screen potential takeover targets.

This job must be misleading advertising.

We better run tell everyone quick that financial analysts aren't allowed to be invovled in M&A;or deal with non-public companies.

RDF.

Dial is trying to hijack this thread to talk about Bonds. Like we don't already have enough threads to talk about Bonds.

I also like the "10 minutes" quote. If you have seen just one Giants game from beginning to end in your entire life, you have observed Bonds at work for ~3 hours. And Bonds has played nearly 3000 major league games. And that's not counting the books, biographies, "Bonds on Bonds" TV shows and interviews.

You do the math, Chris.

My guess is, after last years dismal failure, he lost any juice he might have had within the organization (or without, for that matter) and was not a factor in the off-season decisions, decisions that are now bearing fruit.

But what is this based off of, other than your dislike of Law? Is there any actual reason to believe that the moves that are paying off would be the kind that Law wouldn't like? I doubt Keith loved Josh Towers and hates Troy Glaus and B.J. Ryan.

Maybe, maybe, maybe.

I found a pretty good battersbox article on how the Jays prepare for the amatuer draft.

Quoting its author Pistol

There's the general manager, assistant general manager, director of player personnel, scouting director, two scouting coordinators, an assistant to the GM, three cross checkers, fifteen area scouts, and three part time Canadian scouts involved in putting a draft together.

I have no idea how many scouts a typical team has, although intuitively, 15 + 3 part timers sounds low.

The article also has a summary of what Law did for the Jays to help them prepare for the draft.

But what is this based off of, other than your dislike of Law?

Excuse me? Where did I say I disliked him again, Szym? Point me to it, my eyesight isn't quite what it used to be.

If I remember correctly, didn't I already make it quite clear, in several posts, that I don't know him from Adam?

Who's being obnoxious now, Szym? Who's trying to pick a fight?

Kevin,

Although the Jays did fire a number of scouts, after new hires the total scouts in the US remained the same.

It was only in Canada, where they had more than a handful of paid guys in addition to 50 or so bird dogs for a market where only a couple dozen at best HS guys are worth going after each year, that they really thinned out. This was somewhat overblown in the media, as the scouts and one the key baseball writers in Toronto are pretty tight.

The Jays were just ahead of the market in that call, as a number of teams have either eliminated paid people or reduced them in Canada.

Is there any actual reason to believe that the moves that are paying off would be the kind that Law wouldn't like?

Then why is he quitting, to take a lesser job with ESPN?

Can you explain that?

It's got to be an odd feeling for Keith to be reading all this.

Okay, here's an article by Bob Eliott, a guy who seems to dislike JP because some of the fired scouts were friends of his.
The relevant quote:

<blockquote>And if he stops ignoring Canadian players by hiring someone to replace the nine Canadian scouts who were fired. <blockquote>

Okay, 9 Canadian quotes? I realize that the Jays will want to have a stronger Canadian presence than anyone else, but that's pratcially one scout for each current Canadian Major Leaguer.

Or maybe this has nothing to do with the situation at the Blue Jays. I don't know a thing, but people change jobs/careers for all kinds of reasons, and trying to guess why when you don't have any real information is kind of pointless.

OK, Max, I'll take your word for it.

But I think he fired before he hired, and it caused a backlash in the scouting community. I don't think you can pin that all on Richard Griffin.

But no way do I put someone in a position of responsibility based solely on what they have written on an internet website.

It should be noted - as Paul D did in #67 - that Law's title was "special assistant to the GM", not "assistant GM". From the job descriptions I've seen for people with that title, it's more like a role where GMs place someone with special knowledge of a particular aspect of the operation, but it's not a "position of responsibility" as I would understand the term - such individuals provide input to the GM, but can't act on any suggestions they might make unless the GM specifically tasks them to do so.

-- MWE

Dial is trying to hijack this thread to talk about Bonds. Like we don't already have enough threads to talk about Bonds

No, I was just pointing out your extent of *actual* knowledge of Bonds. You never met him or ever even spoke with him. You've seen snippets of bad behavior on TV.

And do you have any idea how many books I can dig up on how wonderful every historical figure was? As much as BL likes to write "hagiography" (which he over/mis-uses), whatever the opposite is exist just as much.

Read the Dimaggio tell-all - he was a real jerk too! We *all* are in our worst moments, and some even on just our bad days. The difference is that no one puts the 5 seconds where you gave that lady the finger this morning and called her a stupid mfing "see-you-next-tuesday" on the freeway this morning on TV.

And Gacy? Well, he wasn't lazy; and he was a homeowner.





(re: previous ESPN thread - Here I should cite some comic, but I don't remember who it was, but this joke isn't originally mine).

One reason JP supposedly fired a lot of guys was to right the Blue Jays financial ship, which he supposedly accomplished. It wasn't entirely some stathead manuever.

Let's take how financial analysts handled the internets in the late 90s. They were buying up stock in internet companies; venture capital was aplenty for internet companies; etc. In many cases, just having ".com" in your corporate name would get you funding even if you had no track record, and no real string of success.

In baseball, you saw people gobbling up sabes.

You do realize that the internet bubble did help fund many companies that are quite valuable nowawdays. A lot of companies failed because they weren't real businesses, but the internet has enabled many companies to create real business that generate big financial returns.

Maybe the Jays should hire some nanotech or alternative energy expert as their next GM.

No, I was just pointing out your extent of *actual* knowledge of Bonds.

Andthen I responded by how ridiculous that analogy is.

End of story. Back to Blue Jays/Law.

Then why is he quitting, to take a lesser job with ESPN?

I think this is the problem. Without descriptions of his responsibilities with the Jays, and with ESPN, in addition to salary information, travel obligations, etc., how on earth can you possibly claim that the job he's taking at ESPN is "lesser" than the one he's leaving with the Jays? There could be all sorts of reasons for him to change jobs. Money, family considerations, you name it. And maybe, just maybe, the job at ESPN is actually BETTER! But you seem convinced, without any real evidence, that it's a) a step backward, and b) it's due to failure at his previous position. Then you wonder why Dan thinks you've got something against him?

You do realize that the internet bubble did help fund many companies that are quite valuable nowawdays.

Nasdaq still hasn't recovered to its late nineties heights. The failures far outweighed the few success stories.

Or maybe this has nothing to do with the situation at the Blue Jays. I don't know a thing, but people change jobs/careers for all kinds of reasons, and trying to guess why when you don't have any real information is kind of pointless.

Ding ding! We have a winner! Hal, tell him what he's won!

Some here have changed jobs like quitting a big law firm to *not do law*. That may or may not be a "step down". Or some owned their own research company (the big dream!) but just decided working for a govt contractor offered something different.

I don't know Keith, I've never interacted with Keith (except when he sued me) and I think even intimating that he changed jobs because he failed or he couldn't hack it is beneath people that should be allowed to post on this site.