Daddy-O sez,
.................
It's not just Geoff Baker who's maligning the M's these days. Larry Stone has become equally as strident over the past couple of months. His description of how the M's managerial post must look to prospective candidates, while not doubt one-sided and lacking nuance, does indeed capture the essence of the situation IMO.
http://seattletimes.com/html/larrystone/2021915380_stone28xml.html#sthas...
- See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/eric-wedge-true-professional#com...
.................
Very true, Daddy-O. The beat writers are being alienated as a group.
1. Makes you wonder whether the front office got testy with them as the 5th year of losing started to frazzle everybody's nerves.
1a. It says here that both Baker and Stone, whom I like and respect, are being more snarky than realistic. I could be wrong.
2. But I'll bet you could dig through baseball history and find many big-name managers who signed on under wobbly GM's.
3. Every manager who ever signed on under George Steinbrenner, did so despite a horrible "what's going to happen next" atmosphere. Same is true under Charles O. Finley, Marge Schott, Peter Angelos, etc.
Why would Buck Showalter take the Yankee job when he did, knowing that he could be fired one month in? Why would Billy Martin take it five different times? Why did Joe Torre accept the job, on pins and needles, right after Showalter was fired for letting Edgar Martinez hit HR's off his pitchers in the 1995 ALCS?
:drumroll:
Because there is payoff along with the risk!
Maybe somebody wants to go through the list of well-established managers ... sort this list by "games over .500" and the boldface type indicates active manager ... and pick out all the times that one of them signed on into a dubious front-office situation. There will be many.
You can always say that no manager will ever go to the A's under their payroll, nobody in his right mind would work for Peter Angelos, who in the world wants to work for the Mets across town from the Yankees, etc etc.
That's all fan-radio baloney. Every city, every sport, you get callers saying "NO FREE AGENT WOULD EVER COME HERE!" This is in exactly the same category as that shtick. It's just people venting. The beat writers? They're shooting spitwads back and forth with the front office now. It's personal.
.
Fair and Balanced, Dept.
Look, gentlemen, the Seattle Mariners front office situation is not exactly a Peter Angelos situation. Yes, Zduriencik is a little wobbly. But let's not make this out to be some sort of nightmarish context for a new manager. MLB managers deal with slop. It's a different flavor slop everywhere.
Other than Zduriencik being less-than-stable, which the beat writers are making the end of the blinkin' world, there are a million things to like about the Mariner job. That starts with the fact that a new manager would get all the credit for Taijuan, K-Pax and all the other young players.
Managers LOVE to step into losers who are loaded with 1st-round draft picks. That's ANY sport. Chuck Knox made a career of it. It is sports management's Big Hustle, their Three Card Monte game, to step into a situation right before young stars jell. How many other situations are there like Seattle's, if you've been waiting for one?
You're going to tell a Lou Piniella type Hey! we're buying two hitters this winter. We like Taijuan and K-Pax. We got Felix! We got the ERA champ* too. You'll have a dominating starter on the mound Every Day. We got a 5-year contract for you here, $1M per year, you get the money regardless.
.
Gillick, Armstrong, and Piniella
Edit to add, off Bat571's comment below, that Chuck Armstrong has in the past GIVEN a new GM the job, only on condition that he work well with the inherited manager. Lincoln and Armstrong hired Pat Gillick in 2000, and told him that he would be working with Lou Piniella (not at all Gillick's kind of manager).
Gillick sincerely accepted this. He worked very well with Lou, accommodating Lou's preferences in personnel, and the Mariners won 116 games shortly thereafter.
Obviously, Armstrong is in a position to tell (say) Joe Girardi the same thing. "No, don't worry about it. When Pat Gillick got here, we told him Piniella stayed. We'll do the same with you."
...................
You're telling me that Jack Zduriencik and Chuck Armstrong are such a loathsome stinking deterrent that Bobby Valentine wouldn't take this job? You guys haven't begun to fathom what kinds of messes are presented in big-city sports coaching jobs. I mean it in a good way.
It says here that all the "nobody will come here" logic is nothing more than sour grapes, and that Armstrong could get somebody like Girardi IF HE WANTED TO LOWER HIMSELF TO RECRUITING. I don't know that he is. Armstrong doesn't seem like the hat-in-hand type to me.
But whoever steps into Wedge's job, is stepping into a Tampa situation. Managerial candidates will be well aware of that. And they accept jobs with a lot less hope than they'll get with this job.
That's my opinion I could be wrong,
Dr D
But my optimism is usually palpable. I still see more reasons for optimism than any time in the last decade. If this isn't a core than any team who had a core of young players lead them to contention didn't have a core a year or 2 before they suddenly did.
Beinfest is available. Armstrong, I believe, originally hired him in 1989, and certainly helped develop him as an executive. This would be Armstrong's chance to continue his legacy most directly by hiring a protege as his successor. Suddenly, the FO is stable and the manager job is one of the most desirable in baseball, for the reasons you say, with the downside thrown down bigtime. Then, hiring a manager just becomes a HEAVY recruiting job on the Tier One guys available - Beinfest has hired some really good guys in Miami, so Seattle, with he and JackZ working together, should be a rather easy sell.
Slap me silly, that could work. On lots of levels.
That's an EXAMPLE of the kind of front-office strategy that can be deployed to solve recruiting problems. Easier, though, to call the radio show and say "no free agent would ever come here" ... ;- )
As you say that, Bat, it reminds me of Lou Piniella going through a GM transition here under Chuck Armstrong's oversight.
Lou had been here since 1993, and the game's most powerful GM took over in 2000. Gillick and Lou got along fine, despite the fact that you had a GM-inherits-manager situation. (Lou later chose to leave a winning situation, but not because of Pat Gillick.)
Yes, it's a negative for a GM to "inherit" a field manager that he didn't select. But it isn't an ABSOLUTE that a GM cannot inherit a field manager.
.................
Lincoln and Armstrong made it a condition of the new GM's tenure, that Gillick would be working with Piniella, and would be sincerely supportive of him. Gillick did that. If they let Zduriencik go later, they would do the same with a powerful field manager who had been hired this winter.
Is going to be drooling over the M's farm and young starters - both on the mound and position players. Knowing that JackZ and Carl Willis have a piece in that makes stepping into a situation with JackZ still here and the coaches with contracts, however short-term they might be, much easier to take.
I suspect the Cubs will drop Sveum on Monday and make a run at Girardi, so that may be a dream, but I personally think the only guys who will hesitate will be the guys like Matt Williams that are widely touted as the NEXT top guy, but will need a year or two to get their manager feet under them AND will need to get their arms around a young, not fully-defined team. That one particular type of candidate might hesitate if he thought he wouldn't get the time. The Joey Cora types who have been waiting for a chance will jump. Would he be the right guy? Dunno, but he wouldn't be the only guy knocking on the door.
All that said, I'd be much more confident of getting the RIGHT guy if it was Beinfest and a confident JackZ making the pick, than Armstrong and a JackZ not wanting to argue too much.
Wedgie says it is not about the contract... it is about the direction and the VISION of the upper management - specifically Howie, Chuck and Jack.
Wedgie says he believes if the Mariners now choose the young kids they want to build around, add to them, and be patient and sticking with the program.
This group will grow per Wedgie.
Later in the interview, Wedgie says that all the Mariners need to add are: a proven MOTO, a #2 or #3 SP and a proven reliever.
From reading here in the many articles and feedback and virtually everyone's suggestions, we are all basically asking for the same thing Wedge was asking for.
Thus, WHO in the Mariners FO disagrees with this strategy... and how?
Do they believe in different players than Wedge?
Do they NOT WANT TO ADD free agents... uh oh...
Do they want to trade some of the core players to get an UPTON, Stanton, or whomever... and thus go with some of the under performing guys hoping they will figure it out... bigger UH-OH.
I for one hopes I am reading Wedgie wrong.
That's food for thought. ... I doubt that Wedge knows of a plan to freeze out stars; they spent the last two winters chasing Prince Fielder and Josh Hamilton.
...........
All through the 1970's and 1980's, the word was that the Mariners were "two players away .... problem is, those two players are Christy Mathewson and Lou Gehrig." Every manager wants a cleanup hitter, a TOR starter and a dependable reliever, no matter who he's coaching :- )
How would you know if you are wrong? Hindsight after the fact, I guess.
I tend to believe the writers and bloggers that indicate that indicate that the stench emanating from SoDo is toxic. I don't think any top tier free agents will want to come to Seattle. I don't think Cliff Lee will waive his no trade clause to come back to this clown show. I don't think they will get any real interest in the managers job and will have to stay internal wether they want to or not. How will I know if I'm wrong? Hindsight, I guess.
I've been reading everything on the subjects paying close attention to quotes. He wants at least vesting options for free agents if not multiyear deals for those few guys he thinks they need.
I am in big agreement with what Wedge said he wants except for maybe bigger clout in acquisitions. The guys to point to as Wedge guys (don't know for sure though) are Shoppach (woah) and who?
I don't know what the disagreements were but there's a lot of gray area. That he was offered a contract and told media he felt like he was being hung out to dry? Leaving everyone to believe he'd had no contact talks at all. I could be wrong but that seems like trying to stir things up. Hard to take anything on this at face value and the gray area is too hard to guess at. I guess we'll see.
Maybe ownership wants a tidy profit annually with no sales plan and think that the best way is filling around the young guys with 1 year contracts. Maybe they plan on blowing it up at least partially or maybe even planning to trade a couple young guys to find an impact player is just too much for Wedge. Those are the only discrepancies that make sense to me, but I may be missing some or may be wrong. Full blow up under Zduriencik? Why bring him back at all then? Doesn't seem to make any sense. I guess it's possible, like "we can refill the system again". But again maybe they just disagreed about which players to keep. The discrepancies in belief almost had to have been smaller than he's making out to really make sense. Maybe that ownership thing though. . .
Might as well start a list that others can add to and shoot holes in. Here's mine to start it off, with some notes:
Ted Simmons -- already discussed him elsewhere. Though he's 64, he's smart and knows the kids as well as anyone not on the current coaching staff. Would presumably keep the present coaching staff. Best bet to continue the plan the way JackZ has it in his mind. Known for being unafraid to state his opinion; might be better off if Beinfest replaces Armstrong first. ;-)
Brad Ausmus -- though others say Matt Williams, I vote for Ausmus as most likely to pull a Girardi - i.e., win Manager-of-the-year in his rookie season. Smart, prepared, witty, and confident. Managed Israel in WBC. In some ways, a 20-years younger Ted Simmons, without the borderline HOF playing career, but every bit of the baseball smarts. Would need to learn our kids, though. Might be best if hired very soon, so he can go to Peoria and try to see everybody and review video and off-season plans during the Fall. Known for preparation, he'd be best if we hire now and then let him prepare, rather than drag it out. His confidence seems to always have come from his preparation, rather than his (initial) performance, so he'd be more likely to take charge and run with it than some others with more experience.
Joe McEwing -- reputedly Tony LaRussa's favorite player. Absolutely, positively, gave it his all. Yet supposed to be very personable and approachable for someone who was so intense a competitor. Coaches for Robin Ventura's White Sox; was VERY highly rated as a minor league manager. Still just 40, he certainly still has energy and intensity - watch him coach 3B in video!
Joey Cora -- apprenticed under Ozzie Guillen as his bench coach; he's learned how to run a team. Hopefully he also learned discretion, which was not Ozzie's strong suit. Obvious ties to M's in the glory days. Smart player who made the most out of limited skills, he'd really help the young guys. Working for MLB network is getting him more comfortable with the media.
Matt Williams -- has done well as Kirk Gibson's right hand in Arizona, widely touted as the next top manager. Might be too intense for young, still undefined team - in other words, might be more Wedge than Wedge.
Barry Larkin -- considered a top manager candidate, although he's probably waiting for Dusty to get tired, so he can be the ultimate homer. Managed Brasil in WBC. Won some upsets with little-known squad. Sounds like he's an excellent teacher. If we lose Robby Thompson as Bench Coach, he'd be a guy to look at there, for the sake of Brad, Chris, Carlos, Nick, Dustin,.....
Robby Thompson -- could he manage Tacoma or Jackson first? I think he's got what it takes, but is not fully ready. Has done an excellent job tutoring the IF - hope we can keep him in some capacity.
Darren Brown -- would make a great bench coach; not convinced he's ready to manage under the conditions of the 2014 M's with the scrutiny and number of young players.
Dave Brundage -- former minors manager for Ms, now managing AAA for Phillies. Highly regarded as a minors manager. Probably would give an arm to manage in the majors. In my opinion, he would be like Wakamatsu, and would not get his confidence in his own skills early enough to manage an evolving team.
*******
Notes:
1) Yes, they're in order of my preference
2) Any manager who doesn't keep Carl Willis and probably Dave Hansen will be making a mistake, but you'd expect they'll want to have their own bench coach and base coaches. Hopefully, he can talk Raul into being a coach. I wonder if it's legal to have a coach on the 40-man, but not on the 25-man, so you can activate him if he's needed due to injuries. If not, it might be a dandy exception to request! Call it the Borders-Burke-Ibanez rule. With the extra coaching slot it makes some sense!
3) Any manager who would bring in Rich Donnelly to his staff will get my vote for style and substance in his coaching picks. I believe Simmons and Donnelly have ties. Ausmus and Donnelly together also would be a hoot; both are extremely quick witted. Baker would be laughing too hard to write anything harsh.
Sounds an awful lot to me like Piniella's and Gillick's comments after the fact - the upper guys just won't commit to doing everything it takes to win. Regardless of the particulars in each case, doesn't it sound like someone who has been given the responsibility to win, but neither the authority nor respectful ear of those in authority required to get it done? And given JackZ's comments, I don't think Wedge was referring to him.
At picking managers. Never been good? Yeah. No idea personally so thanks for what you laid out. Sounds like a good place to start.
I really thought I was reading too much into Wedge's comments, but I do hear a lot of Piniella in Wedge comments.
Again, I hope I am wrong... but if Chuck and Howie are saying Jack only gets $30M per year more to spend this off season... Jack may have been better quitting as well.
In this case, my take on the situation isn't easily disprovable.
If you got a series of reports on (e.g.) MLBTR that big candidates were rebuffing the M's, that would sway me. I'd be amazed if it turned out that way.
Will probably mosh off that for an article here pretty quick. GREAT post Bat!
Raul Ibanez.
Yep. All the talk about him as mentor and coach while he played this year...Raul has to be considered if he doesn't play.
I'm also surprised that they're letting Wedge manage these final games, and take pot shots on his way out the door. Only thing I can think of is that Z knows he got short shrifted, and this is his gift to let him restore some pride. Might be farfetched, but otherwise why wouldn't they shut him down?
I also think that a lot of this public mud slinging and snarky press from Baker and Stone could have easily been mollified. However, it's only been dead silence from the FO throughout all of this tumult. Aside from Z in the TV booth last week, we haven't heard any clarification or comment from anyone in charge. That's after Z's extension was in question, Wedge was left out to dry, the death of Yamauchi, etc etc. If they'd just come out and clear some things up, their press coverage might have been better.
But at least Baker will have plenty of material for his new role at the Times!
What about Ron Washington? Word is his stay in Arlington might be coming to an end. Can't tell how I'd feel about him, though. He's obviously talented, as he's brought the Rangers within outs of a WS title, twice! And he seems to have the respect of his players. However, I'm not sure his style and strengths match up well with us. Without a talented core of vets, would he be as useful? He's always had those players in TX: Hamilton, Cruz, Young, Kinsler, Beltre. Without those kind of guys, his schtick might not be as effective.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/mariners/2013/09/28/eric-wedge-i-wouldnt-t...
seem to indicate that when you boil it all down, he thinks the M's didn't do enough to supplement the youth movement with a few talented veterans that were (a) not long in the tooth, and (b) contracted for long enough to motivate them to be invested in the success of the team.
I pretty much agree with his view of the fundamental shortcoming of the current regime. Even this year, when we finally got some veterans who can actually DO something, they were all on one year contracts and therefore not invested.
Wedge's comment seem to be in counter-reaction to Jack's reactive comments yesterday (Friday) in the aftermath of the original comments by Wedge, also yesterday.
Things getting publicly ugly in Mariners-land. I can't believe Wedge is being allowed to finish out the last few games given his comments openly hostile to the regime.
We get a glimpse at what may have caused Baker and Stone to say the things that have characterized their writing for the last month or two. Stone definitely turned on the franchise at about the 2/3 mark in the season. Sour grapes? I suppose you can chalk it up to that. But now you can add Wedge to the list of sour grapes eaters. That tribe is on the increase. Amazing how many people are starting to like sour grapes. Maybe they're not so sour.
Added 9/29 am: This morning I find my last two sentences more tongue in cheek and direct than I like. If I knew the "srikethough" code I would use it. My only disagreement with you, Doc, on this is a matter of degree. You seem pretty certain that even top-notch managers would still come to Seattle at this point, and you make an excellent point that it is a situation ripe for a turnaround guy. And I will concede that Baker, Stone, and Wedge all could have "sour grapes" motivations here. But if you read Wedge's comments, he is either just venting bile, i.e., sour grapes, or he is pulling aside the curtain on a very toxic environment, perhaps some of both. It's the toxic environment aspect that gets my attention, not the sour grapes. What Wedge did yesterday in his comments is not everyday stuff. He may have burned his bridges on any future management opportunity. Myself, I look at the M's track record for the last decade and see Wedge's indictment against that backdrop. In his eyes the situation is so toxic that he was willing to call it out. He even flatly contradicted himself from the day before by saying he would no longer want to manage here if he were offered a five year contract.
When Wedge returned, the team really started to tank. I'm not saying it's his fault. But if Jack offered him another season after that, then I don't understand how that's "hanging out to dry." It sounds like Jack basically told him, "I have another year to turn this around, and I want you to manage that year."
I suppose Wedge wanted a strong "vote of confidence" during the late season spiral from this tight lipped and tone deaf front office. But a vote of confidence is usually the kiss of death in cases like this. An offer to extend the contract means a lot more than that.
Actually, I mention him in the notes. I'm not sure he's ready to step directly from playing to managing. Matheny, Redmond, Ventura, all had a year or so away before taking the job. As I say in the notes, I'd be in favor of him being a hitting coach, and if MLB agreed, an activatable (sic) player. But not manager of a group he was a part of. Too soon. If Ted Simmons took the job, Raul could be the Mattingly to his Torre.
Actually, after another night to think, an arrangement like that would be "the best of all possible worlds" for Ausmus. Make Simmons the manager and Ausmus the bench coach, with a clear charge that he will take it next year. Put Rauuul as a hitting coach, with a plan to move him to bench coach next year.
My "ideal" coaching staff?
Ted Simmons -- manager, for all the reasons stated in the "Candidates" comment.
Brad Ausmus -- bench coach, and manager-to-be, and hope it doesn't turn out quite like Charlie Manuel and Ryne Sandberg and more like Torre --> Mattingly
Carl Willis -- pitching coach - to keep Paxton, Maurer, Walker, Iwakuma, Ramirez, and the rest performing (Felix keeps himself going, I think)
Lance Painter -- bullpen coach. Get the pen back on track with a little Dave Duncan magic (see below)
Rusty Kuntz -- 1B/outfield coach - OK, Buhner, I'm convinced - looking forward to what he can do with Saunders, Ackley, Almonte, etc.
Rich Donnelly -- 3B coach and media spokesperson - sharpest wit in baseball; get the kids remembering it's a GAME! And lighten up the sour grapes.
Dave Hansen -- hitting coach #1 - continue the 2nd half and we'll be happy campers
Raul Ibanez -- hitting coach #2 and work with Donnelly as "attitude" coach - yin and yang
Minor League pitching coordinator -- let's get Dave Duncan, who's looking for work, involved with Diaz, Pike, Gohara, Sanchez, etc. and supervising Hultzen rehab.
Minor League infield coordinator -- Robby Thompson
Minor League outfield coordinator -- Jay Buhner -- got an empty nest? -- how about filling it with Wilson, O'Neill, Peterson, Blash, Jones, Romero, Kelly, ...
Wedge was not hung out to dry. He didn't do enough to deserve an extension.
Merit counts, you know.
Me? I believe the concept that Managers "turn down" jobs is inherently flawed.
There are a grand total of 30 MLB Manager jobs available on the entire planet. That's it.
There may be a handful of experienced, winning Managers with enough resume to actually be able to "make demands" because they know they can turn job "A" down and accept job "B". But the vast majority of that TYPE of manager typically is a lifer or near lifer, who is going to stay in one spot for a decade or more before moving on. Lou was that type of Manager at one time - but after no titles in Seattle and no more than 70 wins in Tampa - he lost a lot of luster.
It is the owners that have the leverage when it comes to GMs ... and it is GMs that have the leverage when it comes to Managers.
Are there some managers that aren't keen on managing in Seattle? Sure. But, the idea that the Z situation is more than a 4th level pimple on an elephant sized pool of variables seems to me to be ... I can't think of a word that doesn't sound insulting ... I'll go with ... "Silly".
Granted, pro sports is so inbred that it is effectively impossible to turn down your FIRST job offer, regardless of who makes it - because the #1 variable in Managerial searches is previous experience. It's a wonder that guys like Wakamatsu ever get a shot.
But, why not just look at how hard it is for Seattle to EVER bring in a manager with a resume? In 1986, Dick Williams - with multiple WS titles on his mantle, and a recent NL Pennant came to manage a club which had never had a winning season.
Lou Piniella had managed the Yankees AND won a WS with the Reds. Why the heck did he waste a decade in Seattle? Or three years in Tampa? Okay, when you get a shot to manage Griffey, you can think perhaps the franchise is about to turn the corner and you can take them to the promised land. But, back in 2003 Tampa was a dysfunctional mess on a massive scale.
My rule of thumb with GMs is simple. How do you know they are lying? Their lips are moving. While that might be an exaggeration, the simple truth is that the vast majority of what GMs and Managers say publically is said for effect - and any connection to the truth is purely coincidental.
In the grand scheme of things - for the few dozen candidates available, I suspect the majority who would not be interested in Seattle would be making that call primarily based on the location (West Coast) and perception of Seattle as always raining.
Moneyball is in heavy rotation these days - and the dramatization of the Art Howe - Billy Beane dynamic is especially enlightening. Understanding that it's Beane's (Lewis') book - and not Howe's. But, the interesting point to me is the REAL WORLD narration drawn from actual broadcasts from all the pundits during that year - (long before the book came out). The PERCEPTION from outside the clubhouse was that Beane was a moron (early in the season), and that Art Howe couldn't be blamed for the early season train wreck. But, AFTER Beane traded away "Howe's Players" in order to force him to play the guys Beane wanted to see on the field - the pundits were all lauding HOWE - not Beane.
While it may be a dramatization - and might be somewhat self-serving to Beane - the facts cannot be disputed. He DID put together an OBP focused lineup, and he did make the trades outlined in the movie - and Oakland went on to set the all-time consecutive win streak in MLB history.
My point is - what actually goes on - and what gets discussed in public likely as not have little to do with each other.
If Beinfest took over as President, maybe there'd be a chance of getting Rich Waltz (back) from the Marlins to replace Sims. Waltz and Blowers would be worth listening to. Add more Dan Wilson and Dave Valle and life would be better for all TV-watching M's fans.
Ken Rosenthal mentions Cora and Price as candidates and Prospect Insider has their take on it.
My take: I know Price wants to manage, but he's one who will both need to get his managing feet wet and learn the present group (Felix being the only one remaining from his last tour). He's exactly the kind of guy that probably would (and should) hesitate to take the Ms when things aren't stable - he might not get the time to really settle in to do his best job.
Cora, on the other hand, wants his chance so bad, and has been preparing so diligently, that he'd probably take the Marlins if it was offered. (Although he might have to play 2B, too.) The Ms are unstable, but it may not be chronic. And Cora may be the right mix of confidence and desire to roll on through the obstacle course ahead.
If the Ms do something, like hiring Beinfest or another experienced baseball hand, to be Armstrong's chosen successor (no shake-up or purge, just a succession plan working), then I'd have more hope that things are turning. Right now it's like 2002-3 off-season redux.
...and maybe Lincoln and Armstrong as well. Something has to give here. As for Zduriencik, I don't see how he can survive this. I've never seen this amount of pressure on the franchise and it seems like Zduriencik leaving is the very least that has to happen for the franchise to credibly pretend that they're saving face.
So that's one scenario. Lincoln and Armstrong, maybe on their own or maybe because they're feeling pressure from some of the partners, simply make a decision that Zduriencik has to go before the organization can move forward.
Another possibility is that some of the partners start talking to one another. This is your basic "the other shoe drops" scenario. Maybe Chris Larson invites John Stanton and some of the others over for a barbecue and maybe the Nintendo rep is there or maybe he isn't. There's really no way to know which partners start the discussion or what the specific dynamics are. But, the basic idea here is that some subset of the partners, or maybe all of them, aren't any happier about this situation than we are. Even if Nintendo is perfectly happy to leave things as they are, the other partners have to have some rights under the partnership agreement. After all, there are millions of dollars at stake. Under this scenario, what happens basically is that somehow or other the decision gets taken out of the hands of Lincoln and Armstrong. Someone says enough is enough and finds a way to build enough consensus among the partners to force a change. This could happen. It happened recently at Microsoft where an activist investor that owned something like 1% of the company successfully forced Steve Ballmer to step down.
Another factor to consider is what I would call Addendum 1A to the above scenario, which is that the Japanese Nintendo ownership decides to take action. This could happen, even though Nintendo has been largely hands off. Again, I would point to the loss of face, the embarrassment that the current situation has become. My understanding is that the Japanese take these things more seriously than westerners do.
Does ANYONE want to take a shot at answering the first question Doc asked in this article...
Why are ALL the media folks so hostile to the Mariners FO NOW?
What is the point for all the piling on?
I get it, we lost 91 games, we did not make the play-offs, and Wedge is not coming back... Fine.
Why were these same people so quiet in May when the final decisions that doomed us were made. Yes Baker did make noise this year... but Stone, Johns, Heyman, and even Ryan were really quiet until now... WHY? What's the point?? Do they have an agenda behind their remarks... Makes you wonder...
Wow! I feel like over the last 2-3 days I have been Rip Van Winkel and just woke up from a long nap. All the 'Crocodile Tears' from everybody in all the other blogs and newspapers about poor little Wedge and his undeserved mistreatment. When I started my nap, none of them could find ANYTHING good to say about Wedge and couldn't wait until he was gone.
I have to note that all of this excessive over-worrying and handwringing says much more about the commentators and their feelings about GMZ than anything else. Here are some of my thoughts and predictions (you can mark it down if you wish - I have been wrong before, LOL):
1) The Mariners will have a good choice of Manager applicants from which to choose
2) Seattle is a young dynamic team that could come together and ignite very quickly
3) or frustrate us for another year (typical of young teams, but my money is on them coming together)
4) No one (and I mean NO ONE) will ever know what goes on and is said behind the closed doors of Upper Management
5) I doubt if we will get a big name Free Agent (and I will be glad we didn't waste the money)
6) We will get a few 'lower level' players to fit in (primarily bullpen and maybe OF)
7) We may concentrate on a trade (with GMZ's history I doubt if he gives up too much talent, but it does take talent to get talent)
8) We may concentrate on Japanese players
9) We may very well roll with the young players we have
10) I believe Morales and Raul to be a good veteran and MOTO presence
11) Everyone last year was crying for veteran presence to 'take the pressure off the young kids so they could develop'
12) Who is to say that last year's strategy didn't work (in that regard, obviously not overall)?
13) The sun will come up tomorrow
I for one have been amazed at the improvement in the player development side. For too many years I have watched prospects founder and if they ever got better it seemed like luck or it was done elsewhere. I follow minor leagues strongly and this summer particularly have watched Austin Wilson improve his game. For once we are seeing our prospects now develop and improve. This is really exciting to me. I know I am optimistic, but I do think our best days are just ahead.
That all make some sense.
I really don't want to see Zduriencik go and think he's a better GM than most give him credit for. The same people that say he shouldn't sign long term high dollar free agent contracts in non competitive years complain about him signing 1 year deals and turn around and say he should sign $100+million dollar deals in non competitive years. The complaints are not consistent except that there are consistently complaints. The negativity in most of the blogosphere is at a point where after reading a couple posts from some sites I don't visit there again for awhile because even the compliments and bright spots seem to be weighted with multiple low spots and complaints. Got to reign in any positivity about this team because it still rains in Seattle so here's everything negative I can think of today. . . enough of that. Paxton has had a great start to his career, how can we minimize the meaning of that as much as possible? Iwakuma has a great year, let's not even post about it because that's no fun. Some bloggers have been leading the sour grapes charge for a decade + and they're the geniuses? It can't go right here because is Seattle. .. whatever. Gillick in 2000/2001 was awesome then suddenly a horrible GM Everafter. Zduriencik in 2009/2010 was even better then suddenly a horrible GM. I'm just tired of the accentuating the negative to alleviate the positive by a few local writers. It's not logical or scientific if it's a focus on one side while trying to ignore another.
Sorry that ended a bit off the subject I was responding to, it's just been annoying me for awhile.
It's also possible more voices joined the choir as losses mounted. Baker has been down on the lack of big move for some years. Other blogs have been there for years while saying they shouldn't spend big or trade big which leaves what avenue exactly? The one we've run down that's also been met with little other than complaints? Bakers points have seemed consistent and I largely agree with what he's saying but some others are hard to figure what they're saying unless it's "don't do anything except this or this specifically".
I'd say it's either critical mass or it's about to become evident in coming weeks. If there's an agenda it probably is forecasting changes, but we can also probably never be certain.
It isn't clear to me what you're referencing. In my view, the critical decisions were made in the offseason, not in May.
Maybe, just maybe, the folks that deal with this organization on a day to day basis have lost all respect for the men who run it and how the conduct their business? And maybe, just maybe, the national writers are taking their cues from industry contacts that know just how wretched this organization is viewed in MLB circles?
Baker's gloves are officially off with his latest article.
"But the Mariners have let a lot of good men down for a long, long time and Wedge was no exception. His straightforward, no-nonsense, lead-by-example and take accountability style was never much of a fit for a wishy-washy, passive aggressive franchise. A franchise run by lesser-men who lurk in the shadows, spin fuzzy versions of the truth and take their swings from places where you can’t see them coming.
.....
When they tried Friday to passive-aggressively depict his resignation as contract-motivated, Wedge didn’t do what so many other bought-off team employees have over the years and go quietly slinking into the night. Wedge did what a man does when challenged, stepped into the street on Saturday morning and started to throw down.
The Mariners, as is their nature, quickly scurried back into the darkness from where they had come.
Two final games came and went with nary a peep from the officials Wedge effectively called out as liars. It’s almost as if they were afraid of him. Fearful of what a real man might do if provoked even further. So, they let Wedge’s parting shots at them stand unchallenged, hid in the shadows and waited for him to go away.
And now he has, into a future that’s less-than-certain. But with his dignity intact.
The last good man still standing has left the building."
I don't think those are sour grapes. Those are the words of a credible journalist that has a cat-bird seat to how this organization is run and is disgusted by it. I'm kind of baffled regarding the reaction on SSI. Haven't the Lou Pinellas and Jeff Nelsons of the baseball world said exactly the same thing about this franchise? We've seen players like Nelson run out of town for speaking their mind, Soriano run out of town because Armstrong didn't like his posse and Guillen run out of town because they didn't like his after hours behavior. Pinella left in disgust. Gillick (off the record) says that he will never work for Lincoln again.
How can any of this latest mess come as a surprise to anyone? It's just more of the same old, same old.