Mike Groopman is joining the Red Sox organization as an assistant general manager, per Chad Jennings and Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic. Groopman was previously with the Brewers as VP of International Scouting and Player Personnel.
After short stints with the Reds and Mets, Groopman was hired by the Royals in 2008 and ended up staying for a decade, before moving to Milwaukee in 2017. When he joined Kansas City, the club was in the middle of a years-long tank job that ultimately proved fruitful, as they had four consecutive seasons of .500 or above from 2013 to 2016, which included back-to-back trips to the World Series, losing to the Giants in 2014 but then defeating the Mets in 2015. Since Groopman came to the Brewers, they have also had a nice run of success, having just made the postseason for a fourth straight year.
Of course, front offices are comprised of dozens of employees and no individual can take full responsibility for a club’s successes or failures. Still, the fact that Groopman has been given this new job and new title shows that his work is well regarded in the industry.
Moving across the AL East, Collin Murray will be joining the Orioles as a development coach, he himself announced on Twitter. Over the past few years, Murray has worked with some colleges, in addition to jobs with the Marlins, Angels and Tigers.
Development is going to be extremely important for the Orioles over the next few years. They are currently bottom feeders in a stacked AL East, with the other four teams each logging at least 91 wins in 2021, compared to the 52 notched by the Orioles. However, their farm system is held in high esteem by prospect evaluators, with FanGraphs and MLB Pipeline ranking theirs as the best in the league, and Baseball America slotting them second behind the Mariners. Helping those talented youngsters blossom into productive major leaguers will be extremely important for them to gain ground on their rivals and get back into contention.
Go M’s!
Mike Groopman did a tremendous job with injecting high-end international talent into the Brewers system, with a special emphasis on finding underrated prospects from Venezuela that blossomed after signing. This is definitely a loss for MKE and a big-time gain for Boston.
His connections around the globe, specifically South American are well known. It makes me question what the money situation was where teams such as the Brewers and Royals that rely on finding players internationally would allow a guy like this to leave. If the Rays and A’s taught us nothing else, they showed what great scouting can mean to the future as well as the immediate present. Trades, extensions, and flexibility all rely on the players under the Major League level. Redundancy at middle of the field positions create more opportunity for teams regardless of their fiscal situation. That said, I’m excited as hell he’s coming to the Sox. Behind the scene guys like Groopman make all the difference in the world both immediately and long term. GREAT MOVE!
The money situation? Letting quality scouts go?
Mr. Groopman got a promotion and a raise in pay. Good for him. The only reflection on the Brewers is that they gave him the opportunity to grow within their organization, and being happy with people in the positions above him, they let him go to where he’s being given yet another opportunity by the Red Sox.
Why do so many here have to find the negative when something good happens? In the past month or so the Guardians pitching coordinator became the Padres pitching coach and one of their Ass’t GM’s went to the Cubs as their GM. Does this speak ill of their organization?
The Rays, Brewers, and Guardians have competed for years with small market budgets. They’ve been innovative, creative, and so well respected by their peers that people in their organizations are taken by other franchises and given promotions each year. To me that reflects well on all 3 organizations.
Yea this hire has me excited. The Red Sox have already been pretty heavily involved in Venezuela, bringing in a guy who is familiar with the country helps even more.
Recruiter:” What’s your background, Mr. Murray?”
Colin Murray: “I’ve been an organizational coach for three failing franchises”
Recruiter: “The Orioles are looking for somebody just like you”.
Very ignorant statement. I have a feeling you have no idea who you are talking about. No worries. Most people don’t.
Sounds like bobtillman has some sort of immature grudge against the O’s. Grow up bob ! Or is this Chris?
Nothing could be further from the truth. A baseball fan in general, I detest when mid-market teams “tank” and spend 5 years selling their fanbase the “future” while charging full price to purchase their product in the present. It’s a great and profitable swindle, that diminishes the sport as a whole, that takes advantage of the fact fans will follow their team no matter what they do. In a parallel universe, it’s akin to child abuse. Worse, even, since it’s all about profit.
I have no issue with a team stepping back and reorganizing, just when a team deliberately under-performs. Every fan (and team player, actually) has a right to at least have some hope that the organization is trying to win.
And of course there’s an undeniable reality. While the O’s are ‘rebuilding”, what do you think the Yanks, Sox, Jays and Rays are going to be doing? Standing there?
Someone is going to have to define “Tank Job” vs. “Rebuilding” vs. “Restructuring” vs. “Taking a Step Back”:.
To me the Astros and Cubs were tanking. They were waiting for their youngsters to come up. For 4 years every time they had a veteran that had a decent year or so they traded him for more prospects. I never saw a team do that before.
The Royals as labeled in the article didn’t do that. They had what used to be referred to as a rebuilding. They kept their veterans that did well during the rebuild years. Think Billy Butler who they let go when they declined his option year after the 2014 season as they had a number of players come up to split the DH’ing he was doing. He was a quality player that could have been traded for prospects any year of that rebuild.
I think that is unnecessary.
Rebuilding is rebuilding. The end. Overhaul your roster, sweep out as many unproductive vets for young players as you can, & take a competitive step back.
Perhaps it is done with extreme style & grace a la Cashman’s 2016 which was a fairly painless process for Yankee fans. Sometimes it’s 4-5 straight hundred loss seasons (A’s, Cubs). & sometimes it’s a confusing decade+ of losing teams like your Royals are currently in the midst of or what the Twins went through under their previous front office.
All rebuilds are not created equal. & the overwhelming majority never work.
According to the press, and Boras, anything less than a $200M payroll is tanking.
IMO, the difference between a tank and a rebuild, is the amount of effort used in stripping a team of its talent. Teams like Detroit and Baltimore just got bad, all by themselves. They actually made too much effort to stay relevant, instead of trading the entire team.
If the Reds trade Gray and Castillo, I’d say that is more like taking a step back. They can still be quite good in 2024 and beyond, if they handle this right.
I think that’s a bit heavy handed of a take.
My assertion is that “tanking” is but one version of “rebuild”, @Brady.
It is certainly the easiest to identity. & – imho – one of the biggest (if not the biggest) issue facing MLB as a whole Right Now. Teams – in any sport – should never put the onus on losing. Cheapens the game. Cheapens the result. I have a good friend who is from Baltimore. Lifelong Orioles & Ravens fan. After seeing a series in Camden Yards this summer (Vs the Ray’s no less) he is absolutely done with baseball. That’s a bad result no matter how you look at it.
Purposefully losing needs to be completely disincentivized somehow. It lessens the overall product & – in the end – is costing MLB fans. Every fan base deserves a modicum of Spring training hope.
As I was called a “dinosaur” earlier today, perhaps this is a quaint & outdated belief. Either way: I’m good with it.
The problem with Baltimore ‘tanking’ is that they didn’t tank. Had they properly tanked, they’d be where Detroit is right now.
Way back in 2017, when Ducky’s roamed the planet, they finished last. Not badly last, but last nonetheless, and tied for 13th in the AL. They had Machado, with 1.5 years left. They also had Gausman, Bundy, O’Day, Britton, Givens, Brach, They could’ve traded those 6 players for two top-100+ prospects, a couple of #125 types, and maybe 3-4 top-150s.
Had they sold off all of them, they’d have had a powerful minor league system, but would’ve won 60 games in 2018. Instead, they held on to all of them, and won 47 games.
Had they purposely tanked, they’d be an up-and-coming team, and your friend would be bragging to you that they would catch you.
To me, with all due respect, this isn’t discussion-worthy. You don’t allow all the talent to walk out the door with nothing in return. You don’t build a team hoping to simply stay afloat. To me, the Cubs and the Nats did the exact, 100% correct thing. They got bad this year, subsequent to having won a WS. But they are going to return to contending a lot sooner than some of these teams, like Colorado, that refuse to face reality.
Ya know, I really appreciate how your posts always respond directly to the poster you are answering. That’s a real gift. You either were/are a helluva sales guy or the King of Barroom Banter. Perhaps both.
Excellent example that I am having a hard time refuting. Losing on purpose rankles me. But maybe it just simply has to be.
Huh.
Something to think about.
“Losing on purpose rankles me. But maybe it just simply has to be.”
============================
IMO, not even IMHO, you play until the whistle blows and they tell you to go home. I played pool against someone that ran with Minnesota Fats for money (very small money). I did it because I love the rush of going head-to-head against someone I have no right to beat.
But that’s not the same as making shrewd, value-added moves.
Maybe a better way to look at this is, suppose you are a small market team. I think everyone would agree that a team ranked 25th in revenue, would do well to play .500 over the long run.
So, I will give you two choices.
1-You win 81 games every year.
2-You win 60, 70, 85, 92 and 99. You still win the same amount of games, but over periods of times that I consider more valuable. Even without considering the value of better draft choices, and maybe some enhancements from trading vets for prospects, I’d flat-out prefer a shot at the ring.
Or yet another way to think of it is, as a RS fan, I remember exactly how many games we won in 2018. In all the years we finished last, I usually have no idea of how many games we won.
So, last year, suppose we don’t trade Workman, Hembree, Moreland, and and Pillar. And suppose we win two more games. Then we finish tied for draft position #7-#11. I really couldn’t give a rat’s a$$ going 24-36 or 26-34. But I do care a lot that we got Mayer.
Joe, there’s a #3 on your list
3- You win 47, 54, and 52. You can’t even dream of 81 games, so make 60 or 70 seem like a vast improvement. Continually cry poverty, but yet as soon as any halfway decent player you’ve brought up finishes 5th year, they’re gone. Don’t make trades for or sign high impact free agents, especially a top of the rotation guy who would instantly upgrade the ENTIRE rotation, instead bottom feed off the Rule 5 and waiver wire pickups, hoping against hope a competent organization made a big mistake like leaving Jose Bautista exposed to the Rule 5. Continually hype minor league prospects hoping they don’t develop into Brian Matusz, Garrett Olson, or Matt Hobgood.
Thornton Mellon
Joe, there’s a #3 on your list
==================================
That doesn’t do anything for me.
1-As I mentioend above, the reason for the 47, 54, and 52 isn’t because they tanked. It was because they DIDN’T tank. Had they sold off in 2017, they’d be in far better shape.
2-Signing high-impact FAs, when your base is 47, 54, and 52, is a ridiculous waste of money. Signing a 5 WAR FA to increase your wins to 52, 59 and 59, is the proverbial throwing deck chairs off the Titanic.
3-And, as I say for every team, teams don’t hype prospects. They have professional organizations that do that as their business. The Orioles didn’t rank Mtusz as #5; BA did that. Hobgood & Olson were never ranked by anyone.
4-And nothing personal, but Bautista is a ridiculous example. He was drafted by Pitt, claimed by BA off of Rule 5, started 2 games for BA, and then played for TB, KC, the NYMs, and then again by PT, before landing with Toronto.
I agree Joe. Ownership and for different reasons, along with some GM input. Detroit kept pushing the envelope, year after year trying to win, even tho it’s core was well past it’s prime and signed to terribly expensive deals in an attempt to win the big one for an aging owner who loved his team dearly and DD used his skill (overpaying in $ and prospects) trying to bring that about.
Baltimore a sad case the other way. A once proud franchise, which refused for years to spend in the IFA arena, a cheap owner which handicaped a not very bad GM in Duquette into making nothing more than signing/finding bargain basement players, while himself spending foolishly on garbage and being used as a tool bt agents like boras, letting the GM take the blame again like he did in Boston when the ire of the fans come down.
2 totally different crumbling franchises. 2 totally different reasons, but well put.
Yup.
Damn good post. Really specific. Really insightful. & in a super friendly easy going fashion completely challenged one of my rather staunch viewpoints.
Beers on me if he’s ever in my neck of the woods, serious.
I guess I’d rather have the name Groopman than Gropeman.
I’d rather have a license plate that said ‘Assman’.
Better than Andy MacPhail.
Syd Thrift was the perfect GM name for this cheap organization
Let’s look back at the two periods of time in the last 30 years the Orioles got competitive:
1. Early to mid 90s. The Orioles had a veteran core and added free agents. They had Mike Mussina and Ben McDonald, then added good starting pitching. Voila, a team that lost 90+ in 1991 competed 1992-97 anytime they didn’t have Phil Regan.
2. 2012-16. Let’s remember they only had Markakis, Jones, and then Machado…then a bunch of pieces on short contracts (Hardy, Reynolds, Cruz). They didn’t have starters of note outside Tillman. They had a dominant bullpen. When they did decide to finally spend and commit it was on Davis and Jimenez, so that probably scared them from ever spending again. It was an illusion that was not sustainable.
Take a look at this team. No pitching. Unless we see another Mussina and McDonald (don’t tell me about minor league prospects until they play at MLB level), there will be no pitching. They aren’t spending on hitters but are developing at least some core in Mullins and Mountcastle, maybe Hays and Mancini.
But unlike the 90s, the team WILL NOT SPEND on top starting pitching nor will they get that dominant hitter, and have to depend on catching lightning in a bottle.
I had guessed 51-111 last winter and was 1 off. I have 62-100 at the moment, but I am also assuming they pick up one top of the rotation guy.
Anyone who plans on replying “but what about Means” does not understand what a good starting rotation is.
The Red Sox and Bloom will be in on everything and pick up throwaways and crumbs that other teams discard or have no interest in. I hope I am wrong but I am not getting my hopes high with Bloom to do anything big. We are now down a major starter and have no idea of what Chris Sale brings to the table anymore. The bullpen is a disaster and Houck and Whitlock are not stretched out enough to start.
He’s going to spend to whatever budget Henry gives him. That could take a lot of different forms. $20M on an SP and $10M on a closer, or $10M each on an SP, RP and hitter, etc. There is someone else on here that thinks Bloom is somehow deficient because he hasn’t signed anyone big for us. Of course, that makes no sense at all since he can only spend what he has in the bank.