............

=== Slow Down There Li'l Nellie, Dept. ===

If anyone cares, Dr. D will notice that of the Nine Big Blunders proving the Mariners to be "the stupidest organization in the sport," half of them do not hold up to serious scrutiny.  And that the other half may, or may not, exceed the mistakes we've seen from the Angels, A's, or Rangers.

SSI has nothing against guillotining Jerry Sandusky - if the trial was absolutely fair.  Maybe Bill Bavasi was dumb.  But let's make sure everything we charge him with is true.

.

1.  USSM argued, at every point, that Shin-Soo Choo would never be a starting outfielder in the major leagues, that he would always be a 4th outfielder.  Now it turns around and jeers at the Choo trade as evidence of Bill Bavasi's low IQ?

.

2.  Jarrod Washburn was paid $37M and earned $31M -- plus a trade package from Detroit.  That decision, also, does not belong on a list of "catastrophes."

Zduriencik coulda got two very fine prospects from the Yankees.  That was Washburn's residual worth after his first $31M in returns.

.

3.  Carlos Silva and Erik Bedard were acquired not at Bill Bavasi's recommendation, but at Mat Olkin's.  

Chuck Armstrong & Co., as they usually do, hired the best sabermetricians in the business to help with an Offseason Plan.  Mat Olkin had a reputation absolutely equal to any sabermetrician's in the world, at that time.  In this case Silva and Bedard were the saber moves of the offseason, not Bavasi's moves.

Is that fair for you to jeer at me, if my boss went under my head and hired a Paul DePodesta to make my two biggest offseason decisions for me?  How is this evidence of my low IQ?

.

4.  The evidencing of the Bedard deal as --- > proof of Bavasi's stupidity?  That is purely subjective.  

If anybody cares, I'll once again note that this scoffing was based on demonstrably false logic such as this reasoning, which if true, would imply that every trade of prospects for star veterans, over the last ten years, was irrational.

If Adam Jones was > Erik Bedard on trade day, then every prospects-for-stars trade ever made is indefensible.

.

5.  The Big Blog reaction to the Perez / Cabrera trade was quite moderate at the time.  Notice the comment at 10:47 am, in which Cameron says "using Cabrera as trade-bait doesn't bother me" but we should have been able to package him for David Dellucci.

.

=== Objection Sustained or Overruled? ===

In fairness:  the Big Picture offered by Big Blog :- ) has serious merit.

Their simple point is this:  Hey, how can you say it was lack of ambition, when there's such a substantial case that there were simply moves backfiring.  And the contracts to Beltre and Sexson, and even to Silva, were aggressive.  The Bedard trade was aggressive.  Howard and Chuck wanted to win, and they stuck their necks out.

In a second, SSI will offer its own take that the 2004-08 era was indeed a Committee Era that involved a certain amount of aggressiveness, though not the kind of commitment to excellence that you get with, say, the Angels.

The basic argument is this:  The 2004-08 losing was because of moves backfiring, not lack of ambition.  That basic argument has legs.  That is different from saying that the argument is a slam-dunk and that the opposing argument is laughable.