Article: The Best 25 GMs in History: #23 John Hart

[Daniel R Levitt]

This post is part of a series in which Mark Armour and I count down the 25 best GMs in history, cross-posting from our blog. For an explanation, please see this post.

 

For the 32 seasons before John Hart was promoted to general manager in September 1991, the Cleveland Indians never finished closer than 11 games from first in a full season. And they certainly didn’t appear to be making progress; in 1991 the team lost 105 games, finished last in the league in runs and ninth in runs allowed, and drew the fewest fans in the league for the third year in row. Hart had his work cut out for him.Cleveland had brought Hart to the big leagues after several years managing in the Orioles minor league system. When the Indians fired manager Doc Edwards late in the 1989 season, the team named Hart, then the third base coach, to finish out the final 19 games. Hart moved to the front office after the season, working closely with GM Hank Peters, and was instrumental in acquiring Carlos Baerga.

 

Hart got the top job two years later, and made the most of the talent he inherited. He smartly recognized that Albert Belle, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Charles Nagy, Sandy Alomar and Baerga could form the basis of a pretty good team, and held on to all of them. He bolstered his nucleus with some great trades, picking up Kenny Lofton, Omar Vizquel, Paul Sorrento, and Jose Mesa, and veteran free agent signings, including Eddie Murray, Dennis Martinez, and Orel Hershiser.

 

The team began making steady progress, winning 76 games Hart’s first two years. In the strike shortened 1994 season the Indians were in second place at 66-47 when the season ended. The next year they romped through the regular season, finishing 100-44, at .694 the fourth highest winning percentage of any team since World War II. The Indians won their first two playoff series and the pennant before dropping a close six game World Series to the Braves, three losses coming by only one run. Hart was recognized for his efforts by winning the Sporting News Executive of the Year Award in both 1994 and 1995.

 

As Hart’s team was jelling in the early 1990s, he considered ways to bring some payroll stability and predictability to the team’s finances. Salaries were escalating dramatically through both arbitration and free agency. Hart crafted a strategy to approach his young players years in advance of free agency and offer long term contract extensions to buy out the uncertainty of future salary increases. Hart first offered such deals to Baerga and Alomar, both represented by high-profile agent Scott Boras. The agent advised against the extensions, but both players chose to sign. With these two young leaders in the fold, Hart successfully did the same with Belle, Lofton, and Nagy. This strategy has gained adherents over the years, and it is now common to see teams, particularly those in smaller markets, negotiate long term extensions with players who were already under the team’s control for several more years.

 

Hart gained another advantage a few years into his tenure. A new ballpark, now known as Progressive Field, opened in 1994 to critical and popular acclaim. The team soon began a streak of 455 straight sellouts and jumped to second in the league in attendance. The new revenues allowed Hart the freedom to chase higher priced free agents and he generally spent his money well.

 

From 1995 through 2001, the Indians claimed six of seven division titles, making it back to the World Series in 1997, when they lost a heartbreaking Game Seven to the Marlins. To sustain the team’s competitiveness Hart continued to make some solid moves, adding David Justice and Marquis Grissom by trade, Roberto Alomar as a free agent, and Bartolo Colon, an amateur free agent signing from the Dominican Republic.

 

Less successfully, Hart used many of his best prospects in an attempt to plug holes by trading for veterans. In these years Hart dealt such players as Sean Casey, Danny Graves, Jeromy Burnitz, Brian Giles, and Richie Sexon, often in order to acquire a veteran player who proved less productive than the player he gave up. A comparison to the Atlanta Braves of the same period is instructive. The 1994 Braves were the best team in baseball and handed starting jobs to two rookies: Ryan Klesko and Javy Lopez. Within a couple of years, Chipper and Andruw Jones also claimed key roles on the team. This on-the-fly rebuild allowed Atlanta continued success into the 2000s, whereas the Indians fell back.

 

At the end of the 2001 season, after an extraordinary decade in charge, Hart resigned, and planned to take a year off to recharge his batteries. But when Texas owner Tom Hicks offered Hart a three-year contract at $2 million per year, possibly making him the highest priced GM in the game, he accepted the new challenge. Hicks had lavished the largest contract in baseball history on Alex Rodriguez the previous season only to finish 73-89. Hart believed the team was closer to contention than it appeared and signed free agents Chan Ho Park and Juan Gonzalez to expensive contracts. Both players nosedived, and the team again struggled.

 

Hart recommitted the team to the younger players and the farm system, but success remained elusive, and in 2003, despite the success of youngsters Mark Teixeira, Michael Young and Hank Blaylock, the team continued to tread water. Moreover, Hicks’s investment firm was running into financial difficulties, boosting the appeal of a younger, cheaper team. After the season Hart swapped Alex Rodriguez for Alfonso Soriano to free up payroll. The team jumped to 89 wins in 2004 but still missed the playoffs. The gains were fleeting, however, and in 2005 the team fell back to 79 wins with a payroll that had dropped to ninth in the league from second in 2003. Hicks and Hart agreed after the season that the GM would step down, signing a long agreement to keep him with the Rangers as a senior advisor.

 

Somewhat unexpectedly, Hart will get another shot at team building. In November 2013 Atlanta president John Schuerholz hired Hart, a close friend, as a senior advisor for the Braves. Like the Indians many years before, the Braves intended to lock a couple of their young stars up to long term contracts. Soon after Schuerholz dismissed Frank Wren late in the 2014 season, he and Hart agreed the latter would become president of baseball operations and assume the general manager’s duties.

 

Mark Shapiro, his successor in Cleveland, once said, “One of John’s greatest attributes in Cleveland was his own personal gut feeling for talent evaluation.” It will be interesting to see how Hart does in the more corporate, dynamic, and complex front office world of 2015. He was one of the best in the game during his Cleveland years, and Braves fans are hoping that he can recapture some of that magic.

 

To read more about the history of baseball operations and the GM, please buy our new book In Pursuit of Pennants–Baseball Operations from Deadball to Moneyball via the publisher or at your favorite on-line store.

 

Click here to view the article

[Thrylos]

The ultimate measure of a great GM is the number of World Series his team won.  With that respect, both Jon Hart (zero, zip, nada) and John Quinn (1) should be ranked below Andy MacPhail.

 

That is the goal of a GM: To win it all.  And if that is not his goal, then something is wrong.

[jimmer]

The ultimate measure of a great GM is the number of World Series his team won.  With that respect, both Jon Hart (zero, zip, nada) and John Quinn (1) should be ranked below Andy MacPhail.

 

That is the goal of a GM: To win it all.  And if that is not his goal, then something is wrong.

I think in reality, the measure of a great GM is his ability to get the most value from his players he can in relation to the amount he spends on them and hopefully that value is enough to make them competitive more years than not. Beane is a great GM regardless of the fact he has zero W Series titles.  I think the same can be said of Friedman.

 

I think most owners understand that when 1/3 of the teams in the majors make the post-season tournament, rarely does the best team actually win, and so, in reality, that's probably not the best measure of a GMs performance. I think way too much importance is put on the postseason tournament's ultimate results.  It's been pounded into us that it's the most important thing and to the fans, it is. To the players, it probably is. For most owners, I'd say it's about the money, regardless of what they might say, cause they sure won't say it's all about the bottom line.

 

I believe that how a team does over the course of a 162 game season is more indicative of it's talents than how it performs in a one game playoff, a best of five game playoff, or a best of seven game playoff.

Edited January 15, 2015 by jimmer

[mikelink45]

Considering the Steinbrenner affect - if you chose winning as the ultimate it was always the Yankees GM that would rank highest.  This is a really enjoyable series and I look forward to seeing who will be on the list.  

 

Does Connie Mack and his championships followed by his decimation of his team (like Miami does) keep him in the good column?

Does the notoriety of Trader Lane and Bill Veeck make them genius's too?  Will Branch Rickey get a boost from Jackie Robinson or a knock for his overt penuriousness?

 

In history, most GMs were faceless and nameless. In the 1950s the three above were the only one's I knew.  

Of course Charley Finley created a great team, ugly uniforms and then destroyed all he did.  Where does he land?

We have Rickey, McPhail senior, Barrow, and Weiss in the Hall of Fame so that must give them a boost, but then the HOF does not necessarily make good decisions on GMs, owners and others who are around the playing field.  For example Pat Gillick - a genius in one place, not so good in another, but with lots of friends gets elected.

 

Today Billy Beane has to rank at the top despite the prejudice that Moneyball might create against him.  Walk Jocketty keeps putting winning teams together without a book and would be the next best.  Theo Epstein still needs to win with the cubs (and I think he will) to be near the top.

 

Andrew Friedman has been great - what happens without his personal manager?

Brian Sabean is great every other year and that is really outstanding. Kenny Williams has done wondrous things with Chicago's other team and should get the cut. 

 

Thanks for generating a lot of ideas.

[Seth Stohs]

Yeah, way too many factors come into play when a team wins a World Series title.... the biggest might involve luck, health, guys getting hot at the right team, having a pitcher who pitches great for a 2-3 week period, getting "clutch" hitting from unlikely sources... 

 

A GM can try to put the best roster he can  together and then the players kind of have as much control as anyone... 

 

I would never judge a player, GM, manager, Quarterback, basketball player by the number of titles his teams have won. 

 

Even though that, of course, is the ultimate goal for all organizations, GMs, managers and players.

[Thrylos]

I would never judge a player, GM, manager, Quarterback, basketball player by the number of titles his teams have won. 

 

Even though that, of course, is the ultimate goal for all organizations, GMs, managers and players.

 

May I use this in my next job performance review, if I have to? 

 

I'd love to hear a logical argument why baseball people should be different than the rest of the world and not be held accountable for not meeting their goals.   Being "hard", a "matter of luck" and the such do not count, since there were clubs that actually won a whole bunch of titles, and there are a whole bunch of people who have stretch goals in every day life.  Someone did something that eliminated that "luck" factor to succeed in both cases...

Edited January 16, 2015 by Thrylos

[USAFChief]

May I use this in my next job performance review, if I have to? 

 

I'd love to hear a logical argument why baseball people should be different than the rest of the world and not be held accountable for not meeting their goals.   Being "hard", a "matter of luck" and the such do not count, since there were clubs that actually won a whole bunch of titles, and there are a whole bunch of people who have stretch goals in every day life.  Someone did something that eliminated that "luck" factor to succeed in both cases...

Are you sure you want this as the standard in your next job performance review?

 

I don't know what you do for a living, but let's say you are a salesman, one of thirty. At the start of the year, your boss tells you your goal is to sell more product than the other 29 company salesmen. You finish 2nd. You're OK with him firing you, right? You didn't meet your goal...you were unsuccessful.

[Thrylos]

Are you sure you want this as the standard in your next job performance review?

 

I don't know what you do for a living, but let's say you are a salesman, one of thirty. At the start of the year, your boss tells you your goal is to sell more product than the other 29 company salesmen. You finish 2nd. You're OK with him firing you, right? You didn't meet your goal...you were unsuccessful.

 

The original point is that the guy who finished first more times (i.e MacPhail) was more successful than the guys who never finished first (Hart) or finished first once (Quinn) so he should be ranked higher. 

 

Cannot take what matters the most in baseball (Winning) out of the equation.   Teams do that to please their fans, because there are 29 losers and only one winner in a season.  Sports competition is not Barney feel good.  You can of course enjoy the game, but I bet you will enjoy it more when you win...

 

And, yes, if my goal was to finished first, and that was the measurement I was measuring my performance against, I would be unsuccessful.

[JB_Iowa]

I think WS championships are important and in the case of MacPhail, they were achieved when only 2 teams per league made the playoffs.

 

I'll admit that the proliferation of playoff teams now make it more of a crapshoot but you do have to consider pre-1993 and especially pre-1969 championships more valuable.

[ashbury]

And, yes, if my goal was to finished first, and that was the measurement I was measuring my performance against, I would be unsuccessful.

Yeah, but you're allowing yourself an "if" there, while you are denying it to the GMs.

[ThejacKmp]

"I would never judge a player, GM, manager, Quarterback, basketball player by the number of titles his teams have won."

-----------------

Its interesting how that is different for different sports.  Football and baseball have so many players that it is hard to blame people for not winning championships.  Ernie Banks is no less amazing for having loyally served a cursed team. 

 

Golf and tennis are clearly sports where championships are a legit way to determine if a player is successful.

 

I'd argue that basketball is a hybrid - because there are fewer guys on the team and a player can exert more of an infuence on the game, it is much more fair to say "Karl Malone never won a championship, which hurts his legacy."  Its not perfect (Malone ran into Jordan e.g.) but it's much more palatable than baseball and football where guys have less ability to influence the outcome.