I don't think the issue was that Bavasi "tried to win", I think the bigger issue is that he was just absolutely awful at 'building' a contender. He had no clue whatsoever how to build a team.
I actually supported the Bedard trade at the time, even though I recognized that Bavasi paid much more for Bedard than Arizona paid for Haren or the Mets paid for Santana.
I preferred trading the farm for Lincecum or going after Haren since I was concerned about Bedard's injury history, but in light of Bavasi buchery of the roster in past years I was just really happy that he was targetting an elite player. My expectations had been lowered.
That trade has turned out horribly though, much like pretty much everything in the Bavasi era.. I think we need to recognize that at this point. Its really kind of amazing how badly Bavasi GM'ed this team. Look over his trades and FA signings over the years. Has ONE trade worked out? Nearly ALL of his FA signings were disasters either than obvious organizational signings like Ibanez and Johjima. The guy was just unbelievably awful. Some of the moves he made were just beyond anything I can describe in words.
I'm glad that the team is so well run now. Z is such a contrast to the Bavasi era.
=== Wanting It Too Badly, Dept. ===
It is reasonable to assert that in your judgment, the 2008-09 Mariners should not have been attempting to make the playoffs -- that they needed to begin a rebuild.
It is not reasonable to assert that a $100M-payroll was attempting the impossible, trying to win 90 games.
In point of fact, Jack Zduriencik himself tried to win with the 2009 Mariners. He traded away young talent for Jack Wilson, making $8M.
The 2007 Mariners did not carry a cluster of Darren Dreifort, Albert Belle, and Chan Ho Park contracts into the offseason when they traded for Bedard. They had $100M worth of resources to work with over the near term, including a dirt-cheap Felix Hernandez.
Which $100M payroll, around baseball, is NOT trying to win in 2009?
.................
You can say that you, personally, would have begun a rebuild after 2007. Many were saying that -- at the time.
It cannot be said, rationally, that none of the other 29 GM's would have tried to win with the 2008-09 Mariners. Most of the other 29 GM's, given a $100M payroll, would have tried to win in the 2008-09 seasons.
You can say, reasonably, that Bill Bavasi shouldn't have been trying to win in 2008-09.
You cannot say, reasonably, that few other GM's would have done what Bill Bavasi did, in trying to win. Most of them would have, including Pat Gillick and Jack Zduriencik.
The rebuild paradigm was reasonable. So was the reload paradigm. It's the one that Jack Zduriencik is using now: "We're not going in a future direction. We're going in a different direction," he said on KJR a few days ago.
.
=== Tolerance of the Lip and of the Mind ===
It's fine to pay lip service towards tolerating those who truly think differently than we do. But tolerance, genuine tolerance, is possible only when sincere respect exists for alternate paradigms.
A tolerant conservative is one who aspires to think and behave moderately towards Obama and the Clintons. The tolerant Democrat is one who thinks and behaves moderately towards the Bushes.
Isn't it the reasonable man who winds up persuading the undecided? 25% of the country is irrationally conservative; 25% of it is irrationally liberal; the 50% that matter are listening to less-intolerant voices.
................
Tolerance isn't a remedial class after your supervisor has written you up for telling a joke you shouldn't have. Tolerance is a key component of critical thinking.
It's one thing to claim that the other guys are mistaken. It's a different thing to claim that they're crazy, or evil, or ill-intentioned. That ridicule-the-opposition mindset has not done the human race a lot of good down through the centuries. Sigh.
Internet flame wars are one thing. But the treatment of Bill Bavasi, with respect to Bedard in particular, has been shameful. We consider ourselves intelligent men, don't we?
Let's give it a rest, boys. Bill Bavasi caught some tough breaks, and he had a bad clubhouse, and he shared decisionmaking power. He's probably not one of the 30 best GM's in the world, but Paul DePodesta didn't do a lot better.
.................
Personally, there are (occasional) times when I argue very pointedly that a given idea is totally bankrupt. There are times when I need to do better about respecting those (few) cyber-Seattle ideas that I do believe are simply wrong.
On the other hand, I hope I'm not caught with a branding iron, sizzling "MORON" onto Mike Hargrove's forehead again and again, hundreds of times down through the years, until the smell of burnt flesh is nauseating even me. :- )
.
=== The Elephant In the Room ===
Don Wakamatsu himself has spoken enthusiastically about keeping Bedard on board for the future. It is difficult for a man to maintain these four positions at the same time:
1. Everybody who wants Erik Bedard to be a Mariner is unintelligent.
2. Don Wakamatsu is intelligent.
3. Yes, I have read Wakamatsu's quotes that indicate that Wakamatsu wants Bedard to be a Mariner.
4. I fervently believe all of the above three things simultaneously.
....................
Yet the above constitutes the general consensus in cyber-Seattle.
....................
Jack Zduriencik, after Bedard's surgery, immediately pushed forward the idea of Bedard remaining a Mariner. The reason is, evidently, that Zduriencik wants to win a World Series. That's more easily done with a Carpenter, Bedard, or Escobar than with a Tacoma Rainier.
Achieving a quick WAR/$ profit is easier with a Rainier than with Jack Wilson. Winning a World Series, however, is harder.
......................
As we noted in this article, DL'ed aces like Chris Carpenter, A.J. Burnett, Kelvim Escobar, Bret Saberhagen, etc., often come off their injuries to immediately pitch like aces again. They know how to spin the ball and they know how to pitch.
Bedard did it himself, after last winter, and showed strikeout stuff even with the torn labrum, never mind after it gets repaired.
...................
We don't mind people arguing that the Bedard trade was a mistake. Or, visiting it later if it needs closure -- and if the Clement / Wilson trade is going to be held to precisely the same intellectual standards.
But it would be nice if, at some point, the intolerance and ridicule would taper off. Hey, Capt Jack and Wok like Bedard too.
Best,
Jeff
Comments
But his moves were star-crossed beyond belief.
Would any of us not trade, say, Greg Halman for a 300/360/520 lefthand hitter? But when Bavasi did that, Ben Broussard immediately imploded and Shin Soo-Choo became a star.
Did any of us disagree with the Beltre signing? Yet the moment he got here, Adrian Beltre went from 48 homers, his OPS+ dropped a full 70 points -- by 40%.
Kenji Johjima, to take the *era*, made all kinds of sense and we all applauded it -- but then the entire pitching staff staged Johjima lynch-a-thons in the press room.
Brandon Morrow over Tim Lincecum was endorsed by most baseball people, as well as the biggest local blogs. How did that turn out?
...................
It is fair to note, in retrospect, that most of Bavasi's moves wound up backfiring.
But it is also fair to note, in retrospect, that most of those moves looked reasonable at the time. It's just amazing how badly they worked out.
I supported the Choo trade at the time, I would not support such a trade now. Bavasi bought high on Broussard (BABIP again) to cover up for his signing of an obviously declining and non-productive Carl Everett. I'd avoid trading top organizational prospects for platoon 1b/DHs. Those guys just aren't that valuable.
Beltre is probably Bavasi's best move. It didn't turn out great, but it also didn't turn out awful, which qualifies it for one of Bavasi's best. The upside of Beltre was very exciting at the time. However, this also was not a 'skillful move' IMO. If you've got the money and you offer the best contract, 95 times out of a 100 the player will sign.
Morrow over Lincecum was beyond awful...I cringe every time I'm reminded of that. One of the biggest mistakes in Mariner history. To be fair to Bavasi, MANY teams passed on Lincecum.
I think the biggest problem with Bavasi was that he was just really poor at player evaluation. Shockingly so. Z has ALREADY brought us Gutierrez, Branyan, and Aardsma, and this is just year one. Not ONCE has Bavasi found a diamond in the rough. He would always pay the snot out for overrated commodities.
If you challenged me to name the players that Bill *found*, you'd have me on your turf bro'.
You realize that I concede that he might not be one of the 30 best GM's, though would like to see him get a chance doing it his own way.
And you realize that, like everybody else, I'm wondering whether Zduriencik might not be one of the better GM's in baseball *already.*
You are 1,000% right. You can see Zduriencik's nose for a player already, and he hasn't even gotten loose yet. It definitely has us primed for an interesting winter.
... finding players that are unknowns... it casts the whole debate (finally) in an interesting light.
The debates on Bavasi revolve around whether he's literally unintelligent; whether he uses the wrong paradigm; whether he understands what EqA is; and a bunch of similar nonsense that assumes he's baseball-illiterate, and seeks to position us to jeer at him.
The question about whether Bavasi could identify talent is a much more interesting one.
Oh ya, I don't mean to say that Bill is literally unintelligent, just not fit for the job. Its like a pitcher that tops out at 80mph or a hitter that can't hit a 92mph fastball. Z has the talent to find talent. Bill just didn't.
If Bavasi had Lincoln's position I think he'd be awesome. He just had the wrong job.
am addressing the cyber-consensus more than you.
Not intending to defense Bavasi here ... but I think it's important to note that even if one can accurately and impartially amass the "what", (these players came - stank -- those players left, thrived), the "why" is more elusive and fraught with far more peril in error.
Taro notes that Beltre may have been his "best" signing. This can ONLY be possible by completely dismissing the Ibanez signing. But Ibanez was inked for cents on the dollar over multiple years. I'm betting any VORP/$ talent assessment would have Ibanez absolutely destroying every other Bavasi acquisition. And this is the problem. The "actual" best signing for Bavasi that it's viewed as an outlier, and therefore the masses tend to dismiss it with a handwave, (well, it's an outlier, so Bavasi shouldn't get ANY credit for it).
The basic mass conciousness about Bavasi is "he was a horrible judge of talent". I don't believe the evidence actually matches that explanation very well. Sexson had a couple of good years, (how do you have MULTIPLE good years w/o talent?). Ibanez had several. Joh had a couple. Beltre had a horrible 1st season, then had some good ones.
My take is that Bavasi was indeed horrid at BUILDING a winner. Like fans, he seems to have viewed every move as a unique and completely separate event having no impact on others. Most of the truly horrid acquisitions were 1-year rentals. Weaver, HoRam, Everett ... this is filling holes where it's obvious he had NO faith in the selections. Olson and Vargas are Captain Jack's Weaver and HoRam ... SEVERE risks, but gathered for pennies, (so Jack's a hero). But, Weaver and HoRam arrived because the best in the wings was Feierabend. (And of course, the team defense was beyond awful under Bavasi, which made EVERY pitcher worse).
The point here is that Bavasi's RESULTS were bad. But, I cannot find a SINGLE multi-year signing under Bavasi that didn't produce well for at least one of those years. So, I don't buy the "talent assessment" explanation. I think it was subtler. The "why" for the failure during the Bavasi era, was the treatment of players based on money ... and the complete incompetence in regards to leveraging player talent to their best outcome. My view is that the Bavasi-era paradigm was to encourage Ichiro-ness in ALL its hitters. (Ibanez was the only guy in the whole period who didn't seem to crumble with extended Bavasi-era coaching. Perhaps that's because Ibanez was closer to Ichiro-with-power when first nabbed than anyone realized ... except, perhaps Bavasi).
The promotion and long-term signings of Yuni and Lopez occured, while AJ was traded and Clement languished in the minors. There seemed to be a genuine distaste for the strikeout. They gave Wilkerson a whole 54 ABs before tossing him overboard.
I would characterize the Bavasi era as hyper concerned with hitter Ks, and moronically opposed to hitter walks. And I think they preached this to the detriment of most of the imported and homegrown talent. But, most of the problems I believe were a direct result of STARTING the rebuilding process with two massive, expensive, and long-term FA signings, (Beltre and Sexson). Everything after that was made much, much harder because they didn't have the money to win needed parts, (failing on Zito and Schmidt ... likely a plus in hindsight ... was likely at least partially due to constraints forced upon the budget due to those first two big contracts).
But, judging the "why" for failure is much harder, even when you get the "what" right.
With most of us holding down the top of the bottom half of the inning, it's nice to have one umpire in the house :- )
If you won't put that kind of stuff on the front page here, I will, in flip-chop format :- )
There is no way Bavasi was anything either than awful at player evaluation. Joh and Ibanez were both obvious organizational signings at the time, and I don't think Bavasi was responsible for either anymore than he was responsible for kicking Carlos Guillen out of town (although hes responsible for the return).
Some of these moves he'd made are the type you'd jokingly offer to some of your trade partners in a ROTO league (not expecting them to OK).
At the same, I suppose you could go over the "why" to figure out how everything went wrong. Personally I think he overvalued contact in hitting, didn't care about OBP, overvalued RBI, overvalued ERA with SPs, overvalued veteran experience, didn't understand positional value, didn't value defense much at all, didn't bother to evaluate AL to NL regression for SPs or hitters with mediocre eyes, didn't have an eye for identifying young talent, didn't have an eye for identifying undervalued MLBers, and didn't have an eye for potential breakout players. He was also bad at correctly tabbing the playesr in his own system (most of the players that left thrived).
I think that just about covers it. He was plain just bad at what he was doing.
This was the purpose of my post over at MarinerCentral "Process vs. Outcomes". Almost all trades appear defensible on the surface and this is why the 'moron' and 'idiot' labels say more about the commenter than the commentee. This doesn't change the fact that Bavasi, judged dispassionately, failed and failed quite severely.
But you say why is the tough question, and my answer is that the difference between success and failure for GMs is sufficiently narrow that the only way to fairly and accurately answer the why question would require a full post mortem on the circumstances and details the situation.
Why did he make the Cabrera for Perez deal -- in my mind one of his two worst trades, the other being Soriano for Ramirez? Was it external or internal pressure? Did he underestimate Cabrera? Overestimate Perez? Overestimate the M's odds? Think if we still had Cabrera? We could have traded Betancourt when he had value. We wouldn't have to invest $8M in Wilson... and on and on...
You ask the right question, but a fan can't answer it.
Criticism on those two trades sticks the hardest, IMHO also.
With Perez, he wanted both halves of a very effective platoon, but.... the logic blew up horribly. It was an aging vs-LHP's guy, maybe 200-400 AB's left, and there went our best middle-infield spect.
Great point too that we do not understand the thinking well enough to be as dogmatic as we are about it. Seek first to understand, then to be understood, Mr. Covey admonishes. :- )