Antonetti on Antonetti
The torch was officially passed yesterday, as Mark Shapiro took over as club president, handing the reigns of baseball operations over to his longtime assistant and "co-GM," Chris Antonetti. The Indians haven't looked outside the organization for a new GM in over 20 years. Hank Peters hired and groomed his replacement, John Hart, almost from the moment he arrived. Hart groomed Shapiro and transferred the job to him in a smooth, year-long transition over the course of 2001, and this past year, Shapiro gradually turned the job over to Antonetti.
Shapiro believes philosophically that having consistent leadership correlates to success over the long haul, although it is fair to ask if who in the organization, if anybody, ranks as a strong future GM candidate, now that Antonetti is no longer a "prospect." At this juncture, it's also fair to ask if too much consistency in leadership, for too long a period, isn't ultimately too much of a good thing. (It had also been nearly 20 years since the Indians last hired a manager from the outside, until Acta broke that string at the end of 2009.)
The bulk of my sessions with Antonetti has already been published, but here is one more interesting segment that hasn't been seen before, covering Antonetti's role in the organization and relationships with other baseball men around the game.
I know you don't have much time left today, so I'd like to ask you some questions about yourself, because based on what you told me the other day, I know that will be the fast part.
That will be the fast part.
What is your specific job, what are your particular areas of responsibility?
In some ways this is gonna sound somewhat obvious. It's really to assist Mark in whatever issues we're dealing with at that particular point in the year, whether it's major league free agency or trades or negotiations, whatever may be relevant there, in addition to managing staff, whether it's the office staff or our auxiliary staff, strength and conditioning staff, clubhouse, trainers, video, to helping manage Eric and our coaches as well. So it's really to contribute [in] any area where Mark needs.
So there aren't particular areas or tasks, whether it's contract negotiations or trades, there aren't particular areas where you tend to be the go-to guy who generally handle the details on those things?
It's evolved, and I think again, it's somewhat situation-specific. Even in terms of negotiations, some of it is dependent on agent relationships and Mark's history with a particular agent or my history with a particular agent, or even if it's on a team level, contacts within individual teams. So we really in many ways split up some of those responsibilities — ultimately, obviously, all of the calls and the final decisions rest with Mark, but some of the legwork in terms of getting to those decisions or the process of getting to that point, we share.
Mark has more than once in the past referred to you as his co-GM. What do you think of that?
It's very flattering, and I'm privileged to have such a great working relationship with Mark and our ownership. I think that one of the things that makes it exceptionally fulfilling in working for Mark, for not only me but for our entire office, is that he believes in empowering people, at whether it's the intern level, or through the major-league manager to assistant GM, is that he searches to try to find the best people, and then once he identifies those people empower them to do their jobs and contribute to the organization, regardless of the hierarchy. So, we focus on getting the best ideas and the best proces, and irrespective of where those ideas are generated, if the intern that we just hired has the best idea, and that's the best way to solve a problem, that's what we'll go with. We don't care about where the idea comes from as long as we get the best idea.
Do you ever harvest any useful ideas from fans?
That's great — we're open to, we care about the best ideas. If there's something that we had not thought of, or had not considered as an option or an alternative or the best route, then we'll examine it and give it consideration, and if that's the best alternative, that's the way we'll go. I will say, for all of those things, just because we can't comment on it or talk about it, for all of those things that are speculated or suggested, it's very, very likely that we've at least contemplated it and have vetted that idea. But, obviously, that's not always the case, there certainly will always be exceptions. We have a lot of people here that spend a lot of time — people that are far smarter than me and far more creative than me — that obsess about trying to think about all the different solutions and ways to attack problems. We try to be as thorough as we possibly can at looking and investigating those alternatives.
Is it the plan right now that you will be the next general manager of the Indians?
I think it's best for me to answer that I couldn't be more fulfilled in the role that I have here, working with the people I work with, in the environment in which we work. So from a professional standpoint and personal standpoint, I am very fulfilled and hope to keep that going forward.
Okay, I know I'm not going to get a better answer out of you.
You will not.
You come from not the old-school traditional baseball background, but from more of a business background. Do you see yourself as being any different from other guys who've come up through the ranks eventually to be major league GMs? Like DePodesta or Daniels, do you think you view the game differently from those guys?
I think we all have our own individual way that we view the game and, more importantly in these roles, [that we] make decisions, and some of it's the environment in which I 've grown in an organization is that my style and the way we look at things is to be able to focus on all of the information. We crave information, and we crave the best information, and going back to the point we talked about earlier, we try to be the best in each individual domain, and then synthesize the information gathered from those areas to arrive at the best decisions we can, given the circumstances in which we're at.
You must interact with guys outside the organization, who are from that more traditional baseball background.
All the time.
Do you ever get a strange vibe from certain guys, like they haven't necessarily decided that you're okay?
Not really, I think a lot of that is probably overblown. Actually, a lot of my closest friends and colleagues are people that have far more experience on the field or around the game than I do. I actually look at it as an opportunity to try to learn from them, that's how I try to approach it.
But how do they look at it?
That's for them to judge. I'm fortunate, at least, that I feel I have good relationships with a lot of people, regardless of their particular bent.
How would you describe your interaction with the players — are there particular challenges there, again, in consideration that you don't have as much on-field experience?
They're fine, they're friendly and cordial. I'm not sure they really think about that, especially when you're around everybody as much as we are, we'll spend a fraction of the time talking about baseball, and then maybe even more time talking about life issues of family and kids and activities and schools and other sports. Those are a lot of the conversations that we have — we're still people, we just happen to work in the same industry that has some shared interest.
Are there specific things that you try to do or keep in mind, with an eye toward earning the respect of those people in the industry?
What I think I and we try to be is to be open-minded and to learn from whomever we can. I think if you approach it that way and understand that each person can contribute and has value to add in some way, and it's incumbent on you to draw that out, then I think that makes for a more positive relationship and a positive dynamic. And there will be some people who, because of their background, regardless, just like in any other walk of life, whether it's something about you, some individual attribute, whether that's education or background or playing experience, or ... If someone's looking for a reason to dislike you, they'll find some way, regardless of what it is. But I for the most part have been fortunate that, at least the people that I interact with, I really haven't experienced that.
Why do you think David Cameron has such a big crush on you?
You would have to ask David Cameron.
But you are aware of the site, "Hire Chris Antonetti."
Yes, safe to say there have been enough people that have pointed that out to me, that I am sufficiently aware of that site.
How is the experience of having someone make a website devoted to the idea that you would be a great person to hire?
Again, it's flattering anytime anyone has nice things to say about you, but I think what we try to do is, at least for me, gain fulfillment from the people that we work with and what the results are, because ultimately, that's what matters. That's what matters. Because, fortunately or not, some of those same people who write the glowing things about you now, when things aren't going quite as well — and this is not to David specifically — but those will be the same people who are saying, you know ... you go from the smartest guy on earth to the dumbest guy on earth really quickly in this game.
Yeah, I'm probably guilty of that myself.
That wasn't pointed at anyone in particular! It's just that, if we derive any sort of fulfillment from that, and when people write negative stuff about me, it would affect us the other way. I certainly don't define my self-worth from what other people write about me, fair or not.
Do you feel that it's raised your profile in a way that could actually help your career?
You know, that's not really something I give any consideration to. I think my focus has always been to try to do the job that I have as well as I possibly can, and that if I do that, then hopefully good things will come. And if they don't, I'll be able to sleep at the end of the day knowing that I've done everything I can to do the job that I have as well as I possibly can.
57 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Mark has more than once in the past referred to you as his co-GM.
Me, I’d go with accessory after the fact.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I think one can legitimately accuse the Indians current management of having drafted poorly (especially prior to the last couple of years) and of having made some errors (trading for Matt Lawton, signing Hafner and Wood, etc.). But, the implication that they’ve engaged in criminal mismanagement is over the top as has been argued repeatedly here by others. In the last decade, only 13 teams have made the World Series at all. Of those, only 3 (SL, Colorado, and Tampa) are in markets of 2-3 million people, i.e., are comparable to the Indians. If you want to see criminal mismanagement, check out Seattle or the Mets. If you want to see management that hasn’t succeeded, but has done at least as many good things as bad, I’d say that’s a fairer description of Shapiro and co.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
Relax, I wasn’t accusing them of “criminal mismanagement”, just poking the Bear is all.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
An OPS+ of 105 in 1593 plate appearances for us. He was by far the most productive piece of that trade for either side.
Granted. I just felt it was mis-conceived — Shapiro himself said they were trying to rebuild and stay in contention at the same time. Trading for Lawton made sense for the latter, but not the former.
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
An OPS+ of 99 in 484 PA, while under the contract we traded for.
That contract extension was nothing to write home about, either.
who the heck uses “for one” to end a sentence?
It'd be great if the Yankees and Twins both got swept in the ALDS.
junkballer, for one.
. . . says the man from Columbus.
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 5, 2010 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
I often find your writing impenetrably dense with memes and wannabe memes. There are a few truly excellent writers who post here, but you and I aren’t two of them.
SB Nation has shined a lot on many young talents. For example, the NBA is pretty much dead to me, but Andrew Sharp’s pieces have a way of momentarily drawing me back in. Jeff Sullivan is great. The whole system is loaded with young talent. I truly believe that this platform will be a rival the major outlets one day. Maybe it already does.
Indeed there are a few truly excellent writers who post here, and I’m not going to sit here and tell you that you should think I am one of them. Based on what you guys have seen, I could see how one would be reluctant to put me in that group—and hey! maybe I never belong in that group—"great" is a pretty strong word. But I like to think I’m pretty good, and there are others who think so as well. And I don’t mean that site that spits out every fourth person as Stephen King. Fact is, unless I’m getting paid or graded, it’s unlikely that the ‘pretty good’ will show up that often. That’s just me—and if I wanted to sit here and think about this post for another 10 minutes before hitting ‘post’ it may become one of the exceptions. But…
It'd be great if the Yankees and Twins both got swept in the ALDS.
I thought every fourth person was Cory Doctorow.
by YoDaddyWags on Oct 6, 2010 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Their mind control over Bavasi, for one.
It'd be great if the Yankees and Twins both got swept in the ALDS.
by westbrook on Oct 5, 2010 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t know how many “open mic” events you’ve ever had to suffer through, but I’ve been to more than a few myself. Just about anything goes at an open mic, there generally is little to no filter for quality. But you know what they don’t let people do at an open mic? Show up every week to play the exact same song … and basically only that one song.
At some point, even the most open, undiscerning and forgiving open mic MC will tap the artist on the shoulder and say, “Sorry, you can’t come up and sing that song again. Learn a new song if you want access to this microphone.”
Consider yourself tapped.
by Jay on Oct 5, 2010 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What, I can’t do Al Yankovic to my own songs?
It’s satire – maybe not that even that, more like sarcasm – but if you wanna ban me cuz I don’t think our FO is wonderful, be my guest.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You flatter yourself, and you apparently don’t know what the words “satire” and “sarcasm” mean. When I first published sections of this interview 21 months ago, you crapped over the comment threads with basically these same types of comments. In all that time, you haven’t learned a new tune or even written a new verse for it.
Not every mention of the front office requires you to remind everyone that you think they don’t have what it takes to win. Duly noted. It’s trolling, and it’s been trolling for awhile.
But let’s not even tie it to a controversial application of a specific word like “troll.” Bottom line, the purpose of this site is not for everyone to get together to explain to you that you’re an unreasonable ass on this subject, over and over again. I’m tired of that being the topic of half the threads here, and so are dozens of others.
What I’m getting at here is, it’s not about my having the authority to ban you. What it’s about is you being the guy in the bar that everyone wants to slug. You are not living up to your own standards of conduct. Stop being that guy.
by Jay on Oct 5, 2010 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Though the course of the year ball clubs make many, many decisions. Who to keep on the 40 man roster, which LOOGY to sign, picking up that mop-up guy ect. But only a few – very few – decisions significantly impact the club’s long-term prospects. And many of these decisions and their consequences are unforeseen at the time they are made. Drafting a lumbering behemoth in the thirteenth round, which super-star to resign when you’ve got three and money for only two, swapping a marginal power-hitter at the end of his career for an obscure A infielder. Only in hindsight do these moves have significance. Almost all of these moves are made by the General Manager. But one very important decision is in the hands of every owner. That is: who should run the day-to-day operation of the ball club. Early on Dolan chose Shapiro. At the time I had no feeling one way or another about Shapiro. At first he looked good – real good. He did the things that needed to be done to keep the Tribe at the top. He made shrewd trades; he signed vets at bargain rates. He did all that was necessary to keep the Tribe in contention. All that is save one: succeed in drafting future stars. This failure is not just a flaw with surmountable consequences; it’s cataclysmic for the Tribe’s long-term pennant chances.
So now comes the regime "change", only it’s no change at all. We get the prince in waiting, with similar credentials as his predecessor, using the same vocabulary and – presumably – the same skill set. Clearly Dolan has opted for stability over change. I think that change is needed, many here don’t. Fine. Now comes this interview. And what do we get? Softballs teed up by a submissive admirer. Instead of: You guys have been striking out in the draft for the last five years, how do you plan to fix it? We get: "But you are aware of the site, “Hire Chris Antonetti?”
I get it. You’re a new media outlet trying to establish a rapport with the team you’re covering. So why alienate one of the teams key players? But I don’t have the same issues. I’m pissed at Dolan for keeping the status quo and pissed at Antonetti for even thinking he knows how to keep – make that get – the Tribe in the pennant race.
So yeah, I’m that guy. I think we need a radical change at the top. In two years you’ll be that guy too.
Our best players wear suits.
I thought the questioning was pretty aggressive, especially in being persistent on the point of Antonetti’s lack of baseball experience (which should have been something you enjoyed, Chuck). Your rhetoric, on the other hand, ranges from annoyingly repetitive to completely illucid. You’re clearly convinced that you’re completely right, but if you don’t find a new way to express it, people are going to get pretty sick of your schtick. You are a buffoonish caricature of the “that guy” that you see yourself as.
Come on, four billion!
by Joel D on Oct 6, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m embarrassed at the sheer stupidity of this critique.
This was five or ten minutes out of nearly three hours of Q&A. My questions about the Hafner contract alone went on about three times longer than this.
The question about the website, I almost had to ask, because at that point, hardly anyone had ever interviewed Antonetti. I also saw it as a chance to inject some levity, maybe give him a chance to show more of his personality. Note also that I chose not to even run this part of the Q&A in the Indians Annual or in three long excerpts that followed it. I excluded it because ultimately, fans are more interested in the players and in the key decisions than in the man himself. Only this week did I feel that reading a little about the man himself might be of more interest.
It is not just erroneous, but flat-out dishonest to act as if that one question was typical of my questioning of Antonetti. You know for a fact that it was not.
We are not looking to build media empires here, and we have resisted many opportunities to be more ham-fisted and dumb, more reliant on Indians management for access and prestige, and more attractive to advertisers while eroding our base of readers — of people who don’t flock to us salmon-like for fresh content, but who appreciate what we actually have to say. You have no idea.
Even with almost three hours to work with, I still had to pick and choose my topics carefully. I didn’t ask much about the draft, because (a) there were a LOT of individual topics to cover in terms of making decisions at the major league level, (b) I didn’t think that was necessarily the best area to be addressed by Antonetti in particular, or of the most interest to fans at that moment in time, and © I had another writer interviewing John Mirabelli and Brad Grant, all at the same time I was talking to Antonetti.
If I have the opportunity to talk to Antonetti on the record again, or even moreso Shapiro, I have some very specific and pointed questions to ask about the draft. But I think I’ve been pretty clear that I will not attempt to build my own reputation, as insignificant as it is anyway, on sycophantic access.
by Jay on Oct 6, 2010 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Well hell, if I had known you were planning on asking Antonetti about the draft I wouldda had a different take on the “interview”. But I’m sure that you can see that it would be a pretty important topic, what it being the Achilles heel of this regime and all. And I just picked the softest of all the softballs, didn’t mean to imply that it was typical just that it was limp.
I’m just telling you what it looks like on how it stands alone, without any knowledge of your plans.
Our best players wear suits.
It doesn’t stand alone, Chuck, it stands along with 15,000 other words.
Are you confused? Do you not realize that this was part of the same interview that I published in spring 2009?
by Jay on Oct 6, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Just checked the word counts. This was 342 words out of 17,639. Less than two percent of the Q&A.
by Jay on Oct 6, 2010 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
In all of those 17,000 words did you ask him about the poor draft results? Maybe I am confused, but how could you spend that much time with Antonetti and not ask him about the Indians poor draft performance?
Our best players wear suits.
Are we talking about the same interview where Jay spent a significant chunk of time on your pet Hafner theory?
Asked and answered.
I will add only that at that particular moment time, the problem drafting was not seen as much of a current issue. Laffey, Sowers and Jensen Lewis had all contributed, Huff and Weglarz were riding high, we were cautiously optimistic about Scott Lewis, Mills and Chisenhall, and Adam Miller looked poised for a comeback. Out of those nine, everyone’s stock has gone down except Chisenhall.
by Jay on Oct 7, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
In retrospect, it’s easy to jump on the draft results in October of 2010. I’m sure you’d delve into this much more if you were to conduct this interview again.
It’s just me, the Mutamucil isn’t working.
Our best players wear suits.
That’s just lame, Chuck. But nice of you to concede the point. Your attack on Jay’s interview was pathetic.
As someone who has to interview all manner of public figure nearly every day, I can only say that Jay’s interview was thorough. That is the most complete compliment I can give. It was prepared, layered, thoughtful, and occasionally tough when appropriate. If you think otherwise, you suck at reading comprehension.
by tabler84 on Oct 8, 2010 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure Weglarz’s stock has gone down. He had his best statistical year of his career, albeit cut short by injury.
by APV on Oct 7, 2010 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a nit worth picking. Weglarz had a disappointing 2009, and while he bounced back in 2010, he also missed more than a month with injuries.
It is true, however, that his stock is only down slightly since then, where the other seven guys have all really nosedived to some extent.
None of the others are prospects in any sense of the word. Weglarz is, albeit with a bad injury history following him. But 2010 was a good season for him. He finally made it to AAA while showing no drop off in his performance, maintaining good power and peripherals. All he has to do to be in Cleveland now is stay healthy.
The point wasn’t prospect evaluation per se, but rather evaluating the fruits of our more recent drafts. Two seasons later, our drafts of the mid-aughts don’t look as they used to.
Of course.
My only complaint was this statement:
everyone’s stock has gone down except Chisenhall
I would have preferred an, “an possibly Weglarz”. With the exception of post-2007, Weglarz has always been an under-the-radar prospect, and pretty much remains so today. Wegz put up great numbers for 30% of a season at AA and 40% of a season at AAA, and he still doesn’t turn 23 until December.
Wait, so 2008-2010 drafts were also strikeouts?
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Oct 8, 2010 1:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Jesus. I had to listen to Corey Pavin all week leading up to the Ryder Cup. Somehow, I think Antonetti is less interesting and offers fewer actual insights. And that’s not the fault of the interviewer.
In all fairness, Antonetti told Jay upfront this was one of the subjects he didn’t want to talk about. So, no surprise that it was thin on new insights.
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
by LeftyCatcher on Oct 6, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes. It was not his goal to be interesting. If you go back to my original introduction:
Then again, maybe sticking with his usual outsider talking points on certain subjects was a way for him to avoid saying something he didn’t really want to say. At one point: “I’m not deliberately trying to be vague or vanilla — actually, maybe I am.”
by Jay on Oct 6, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
But you are aware of the site, “Hire Chris Antonetti.”
Yes, safe to say there have been enough people that have pointed that out to me, that I am sufficiently aware of that site.
Maybe he just had his guard up during this interview, but he can’t even roll with something as goofy as this?
I don’t expect an executive to be a goof, but you hope that they can at least exhibit some humor once in awhile and let down the shield.
In fairness to Antonetti, if you could hear the audio at that point, what you’d hear is a guy struggling to keep playing it straight and trying not to laugh at least a little. He was dry, not humorless.
by Jay on Oct 6, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions

by 















