The Economist has an interesting baseball piece in wake of the Los Angeles Dodgers poaching the Tampa Bay General Manager Andrew Friedman, arguing that superstar chief executives aren’t as valuable as they’re made out to be, that the supply of them outstrips the demand, and that clubs left in the hands of mediocre GMs (e.g., Ruben Amaro Jr. of the Phillies) are the result of poor ownership decision rather than scarcity. It’s a broadside against the Great Man Theory, suggesting that while setting up a good organization and process are hallmarks of a talented exec, the organization then becomes bigger than the individual leader. An excerpt:

“Hiring the talented Mr Friedman is hardly the worst or most wasteful decision in recent Dodgers history. The gap between what he is paid and what he will contribute pales in comparison with what the club is squandering on Andre Ethier or Brandon League. And Mr Friedman’s sterling reputation may help Los Angeles to attract elite researchers and scouts, who are the real sources of competitive advantage, from other clubs.

But far from the $100m a year or so that Mr Morris suggests that Mr Beane deserves, no member of a front office is worth as much as even a half-decent MLB player. The reason GMs make less money than players do isn’t because owners are blind to the contributions of an elite executive. It’s because there are far more people capable of running an MLB team at a high level than there are people capable of playing for one, and less scarcity leads to less value. The only front-office decision that really matters is the owner’s choice to embrace modern management techniques. Once a club chooses to take the plunge into the 21st century, there will be no shortage of brainiacs ready, willing and able to implement that strategy.”