Mar
11

Yankees will introduce Towers next week

By

The Yankees will officially announce the hiring of former Padres’ general manager Kevin Towers next Tuesday, where he’ll be introduced as a special assistant to GM Brian Cashman. We first learned of the hire back in January, but at least now we know it’ll be absolutely official. Towers will be sort of a roving scout, get looks at both amateur and professional players as needed. He’s also going to be a sounding board for Cashman, a baseball guy to bounce ideas off of.

How much does a special assistant to the GM make? Well, the Yanks will pay Towers just $50,000 in 2010. Don’t feel bad for him though, San Diego still owes him over a million bucks.

Categories : Asides, Front Office

100 Comments»

  1. Andy In Sunny Daytona says:

    I wonder how much YES will pay him?

  2. Gor says:

    What’s Towers’ WAR?

  3. mryankee says:

    Towers is good with young pitchers right? Maybe he can figure how what the hell happened to Joba? I have never seen someone lose so much “stff” in so little time. I hope Towers canhelp with this.

  4. mryankee says:

    “stuff”

  5. Rose says:

    So if San Diego is still paying him his salary…that would mean he’s not technically in the Yankees Organization but rather a consultant of sorts until his contract over there is up?

    • YankeesJunkie says:

      Probably. Special Assistant=Counsultant, why not.
      However it sounds like Towers could be beneficial in adding input to Yankees future prospects especially pitchers which is never a bad thing. Love the move.

  6. Jeremy says:

    Didn’t they already introduce Josh Towers?

  7. Tbord says:

    The signing of Towers is not exactly a vote of confidence for Damon Oppenheimer. I speculate that someone in the front office wants a second opinion on the draft. Does Towers get involved in the draft? Does anyone have an opinion on how well Oppenheimer is doing? Will Oppenheimer be pushed out?

    • I’m not an expert on this stuff, but I don’t think this has much, if anything, to do with Oppenheimer’s performance. I’m pretty sure the intent is for Towers to work more as a pro/minors scout, I don’t think he’s going to be heavily involved in draft preparation.

      Also… The Yankees don’t seem to have gone out searching for another voice to bring into the organization because they’re unhappy with anyone, they seem to have just hired Towers because he happens to be a very smart guy who they are familiar/friendly with and who happened to become available and have an interest in taking a relatively minor role in the Yankees’ F.O. It’s not like they were unhappy with someone so they searched for a replacement or anything like that.

    • Meh, I don’t read that much into it. I don’t think Towers is there to replace Oppenheimer (which would be a demotion for him), I think Towers is there to help Oppenheimer because Towers is interested in a paycheck from a good team doing the thing that he enjoys doing, which is scouting players.

      The Yankees signing Towers is, IMO, akin to the Vikings interest in signing LaDanian Tomlinson. It’s not that they don’t have confidence in Adrian Peterson’s abilities, it’s simply that they respect Tomlinson’s ability and want to use him in the small, specific third down passing situation role because he’d be really awesome in that role.

      Low-hanging fruit.

    • YankeesJunkie says:

      I don’t think that at all. Oppenheimer actually had a very solid draft in 2009 and would have had in 2008 if Cole did not back out. However Towers is there for the second opinion maybe on pitchers not neccesarily only for the draft, but other teams in trade situations. A second opinion Towers on pitching prospects whether it is to Oppenheimer or to Cashman will only contribute to the Yankees and not to be taken as a threat to someone’s job.

      • Towers’s job isn’t to do Oppenheimer’s job, it’s to provide Oppenheimer with better, more detailed, smarter scouting information to make Oppenheimer’s job easier and more fruitful.

      • Meh, I agree with Opp’s decision to take Cole. I think you almost always take the best talent available and deal with the other stuff later…but 2008 hasn’t looked great so far. His next few picks were Bleich at 44 (was thought of as an overdraft then and hasn’t had a great show yet…still, he’s a fairly talented lefty), Bittle at 75 (whom we never signed because of serious injuries) and David Adams at 106 (likely utility player that can’t play SS). The next two picks were Corban Joseph, a good-hitting infielder with defensive concerns, and CHRIS SMITH, who was so terrible, he hit .127! You read that correctly.

        There were some quality picks like Marshall and DJ Mitchell, maybe Higashioka turns into something.

        Still, it does not appear to have been a good draft.

        • I think 2008 could turn out fairly well in the long run.

          • Tbord says:

            Really? Please elaborate.

            • Adams, Joseph, Marshall, Higashioka, Mitchell, Phelps, Richardson, and Turley are all decent prospects with upside. One or two of them will probably be at least fringy big leaguers (solid bench guys or non-elite setup men), possibly more. There’s talent there.

              Also, there’s a bit of a philosophical argument in play as well: If you’re docking the 2008 draft for the Cole and Bittle non-signs, does the team get any credit for the Heathcott and Murphy signs? Those picks wouldn’t exist in the 2009 draft if not for the Cole/Bittle issue. What draft class should those guys be credited to?

              • Those picks wouldn’t exist in the 2009 draft if not for the Cole/Bittle issue.

                Sort of true, assuming the signings of the Type-A free agents.

                Still, I’d much rather have Cole and B(r)ittle than Heathcott and Murphy. In fact, it’s not even close.

              • Tbord says:

                Not one Outfielder in this group. In fact, our entire US amateur draft system has produced very few outfield prospects in the last few years. If not for the Latin kids, things would be even worse. And while Adams and Joseph are in your group, neither is expected to be more than a fringy Major League player. Our entire system is practically devoid of any good infield prospects. Again, thank god for the Latin kids. Yes, we have catching and pitching well in hand, but there needs to be more draft balance. Or does there? Overall, I disagree with the 2008 class being a win. We should of and could have done better.

                • Not one Outfielder in this group. In fact, our entire US amateur draft system has produced very few outfield prospects in the last few years… Yes, we have catching and pitching well in hand, but there needs to be more draft balance.

                  That’s not the way you evaluate drafts. You take what comes to you.

                • Stryker says:

                  just wondering why you said “should of” which is incorrect, then one word later said “could have” which is the proper way.

                  /grammar nazi

                • Tbord says:

                  A play on coulda woulda shoulda. My bad.

                • Stryker says:

                  no worries! didn’t mean to come off as a dick. just a huge pet peeve of mine haha.

                • Tbord says:

                  Are you serious? You take what comes at you? With that kind of draft strategy, we might as well hire the Knicks GM, and give up our first round pick every year for a bag of balls.

                • Are you serious? You take what comes at you? With that kind of draft strategy, we might as well hire the Knicks GM, and give up our first round pick every year for a bag of balls.

                  /boversimplified

                  Seriously, the reason our farm system is generally pitcher and catcher heavy is because that’s what falls to you in the bottom of the round. The good outfielders and infielders are generally gone when we pick. Pitchers and catchers slide because there’s more boom-bust potential.

                  Drafting for need instead of taking best player available is a horrible baseball draft strategy. Doing that is what caused our nuclear winter of failed drafts of the late ’90s/early ’00s.

                  You take what comes to you.

                • With that kind of draft strategy, we might as well hire the Knicks GM, and give up our first round pick every year for a bag of balls.

                  Oh, and ironically, one of the few things that Isiah Thomas did well: pick draft choices.

                • Tbord says:

                  I respectfully disagree – After the first and second round of the draft, things tend to level off. The better scouting teams that draft always find good players later on. Always! As much as I hate to admit it, the Sawx have us beat here. The Angels too. There are lots of examples, and I do not need to go over it, as it pains me to open thw door for the Red Sox trolls to jump in. Let’s just say that the hiring of Towers makes sense. I for one, have had enough of the Chris Smith jokes.

                • Tbord says:

                  As for Isiah Thomas being a good talent evaluator. Ha! Ha! Ha! The only thing he was good at, was chasing down tail in the front office.

  8. Tbord says:

    Didn’t they bring in Bill Livesey recently in a similar scout advisor role? I’m not into conspiracy theories, but there seems to be a lot of overlap.

  9. Stryker says:

    still can’t get over how great the addition of k. towers could be for the yankees.

  10. bobmac says:

    Great hire.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.