Seattle Sports Insider

Josh Lueke the Pitcher :- ) (2)

Posted by

9/21/10

=== Capt. Jack ===

My take on Jack Zduriencik's performance here? SSI believes that Zduriencik's only "messup" was to fail to anticipate Chuck Armstrong's PC sensitivities.

SSI believes that Armstrong's sensitivities are different from those that a GM finds in the typical ML city, and that the Times' reporting would not have gained nearly so much traction in Arlington or Chicago or Kansas City. I could be wrong.

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

I don't fault Zduriencik for this, at all. I see it as one more case wherein a man of colossal stature and reputation in baseball, ran headlong into a Seattle Mariners baseball culture that has priorities far different from thos in other ML cities.

When Zduriencik saw the spit-storm, he did what he could: he spun the story a little bit, so as to absolve his boss from blame, and so as to represent himself as not in rebellion to that boss.

Of course, scabs like that don't heal if people don't stop picking at it. So Zduriencik finds himself in a situation that sometimes occurs in upper management: it's not really anybody's fault (unless Armstrong's), but still, heads are going to roll.

M's fans wonder why Zduriencik would sign on under these circumstances. What, in his mid-50's, ten years from retirement, Zduriencik wasn't going to take his GM opportunity? Preposterous. The exec takes the job and he hopes for the best.

A melancholy incident all around. Our fervent wishes that the Mariners will hop over this speed bump and that Zduriencik will GM the Mariners, with authority, for the next ten years.

=== The Times ===

As to the Seattle Times' role, I'll be curious to see what they do if the Mariners bring Lueke to camp next spring.

The Times has said its piece, has reported the issue. If it perpetually campaigns for Lueke to be blacklisted in Seattle, the conversation becomes a different one.

There's a difference between (1) reporting on a ballclub's executive steering, and (2) using Josh Lueke as a thinly-veiled weapon to enforce social agendas.

To this point, there has been an interesting, and controversial, story, about "dysfunction" in the Mariners' offices. If March 2011 brings a fresh campaign against Lueke, the reporting will be confirmed to have had a different intention.

Trying to report on Mariners' management is one thing. Attempting to render one ballplayer persona non grata is a different thing.

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

Feasibly, Zduriencik might ask Baker what his plans are. I certainly would! I don't need the distraction next March, so would prefer to have an early gauge on the plusses and minuses of keeping Lueke. Before I got to Arizona.

Also feasibly, Zduriencik might go ahead and trade Josh Lueke if Baker reveals his hand to be, "Lueke won't pitch for the Mariners if I can help it."

Which would be an amusing, though logical, degree of influence for a local reporter / analyst to wield.

=== Best Case Scenario ===

Supposing that the Mariners did decide to issue a few comments:

"Josh Lueke had a very unfortunate incident, and has been judged and punished. No further incidents of any type will be tolerated. In the meantime, Josh will continue to pursue his goals with the Mariners and we wish him the best in recovering his life and career" ...

And then the Mariners decided to allow Lueke to become the next impact AL short man?

Well, I guess they'd wind up with the pitcher they thought they traded Brandon Morrow for.

Cheers,

Dr D

Comments

This I can live with

Doc wrote.....
=== Best Case Scenario ===
Supposing that the Mariners did decide to issue a few comments:
"Josh Lueke had a very unfortunate incident, and has been judged and punished. No further incidents of any type will be tolerated. In the meantime, Josh will continue to pursue his goals with the Mariners and we wish him the best in recovering his life and career" ...

And then the Mariners decided to allow Lueke to become the next impact AL short man?
Doc,

Even though I posted (and I think some of your response was aimed at) that I would prefer the M's get the best deal they can and let the kid go, I think I could live with your straight forward approach. Such a declaration by the M's, repeated each time it comes up, could reverse the tide and change the story. But it has to be a response repeated by the entire organization. All the same, organizatons live by an identity. Lueke, if te cards aren't played well, becomes a big face of a new M's identity. Imagine if the Kirby Puckett sexual assault/imprisonment incident had been the face of the "Homer Hanky" Twins. Does it cost them a WS? maybe not...but it consumes loads of energy for the entire organization.
But a straight forward/all voices in united approach like yours I could live with...not like, necessarily....but live with. Honesty has some value.
However, I remain convinced that Z messed up. He either acquired a guy that he knew was a PR/ethics nightmare and didn't bother to inform the higher ups to inquire as to their wishes in such a touchy situation OR he missed the potential seriousness of Lueke's act, altogether, OR he didn't care about the PR "spit-storm" about to come down.
A GM lives by a pseudo-Hippocratic oath; "First, do no harm (to the organization)."
Which isn't to say that you don't roll the dice with a trade deal, but that dice roll revolves around on field performance, not shucking and ducking off-field rape allegations.
Z's walking on thin ice. His own actions have now produced some serious cracks in that already risky perch. 50/50 he doesn't make the all-star break.
moe

Let's start

Let start repeating the statement now...give the M's a headstart so to speak:
"Josh Lueke had a very unfortunate incident, and has been judged and punished. No further incidents of any type will be tolerated. In the meantime, Josh will continue to pursue his goals with the Mariners and we wish him the best in recovering his life and career" ...

I would add emphasis to "any" as in, "No further incidents of ANY type will be tolerated..."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
This approach should not only answer future questioning from both reporters and the fanbase, but also bring the front office back into allignment and get to work putting this entire episode (of the way the trade went down, not who was in it) behind them.

Sure it could

I think I could live with your straight forward approach. Such a declaration by the M's, repeated each time it comes up, could reverse the tide and change the story. But it has to be a response repeated by the entire organization.

When this type of external pressure ---- > begins to sense that it cannot get a purchase, it loses interest and moves on.
Encourage the pressure even a dime's worth, much less a Carmen Fusco's worth, and you're going to get a feeding frenzy.

Right

If applied simply and clearly, that kind of message usually works.
When Bobby Knight was on his last chance at Indiana, for example, the admin did placate the lynch mob by telling them Knight had signed a "no more chances" agreement with the University. (He did later take ahold of a kid's elbow and get fired.)
It's a very powerful device. What are you supposed to counter with, if you're part of the mob? You can yell "he shouldn't even be getting this chance" but that makes for a very poor bumper sticker. The counter is not sound-byte-able.
....................
Not that Baker's articles are simplistic; they're not. But a CROWD listens in very simple chunks.
Bush lied, kids died, the message has to be that simple to direct a mob. I don't know that you can counter "Zero Tolerance From Here" on a bumper-sticker level.

First, thank you Geoff Baker

Geoff Baker, taking the time on multiple occasions to wade through this swamp, was truly extraordinary and completely unexpected.

My final thoughts

There's just still so much we don't know and a lot that we can't know. But I can't go with you, Doc, on some of your points.
Acquisition saga:
Based on what the record shows, and Geoff has, I think, done a fair job of reporting it, this is a serious incident. Set aside the legalities or what "no contest" means. I'm just talking about the internal Mariners context.
A woman says she is violated. She has male DNA on her person. The male DNA is Josh Lueke's. Without any embellishment or technicalities of the judicial system or anything else. I think that gets taken seriously in 30 of 30 cities. I'm sorry, but Chuck Armstrong is not the only exec who doesn't want to get blindsided by a story like this.
Now, on the Pelosi-to-Palin scale, I'm way on the Palin side. I'm not beholden to PC agendas or anything else. I cannot, however, believe that Seattle is the only city and Chuck Armstrong the only club exec that would make this an issue. It is a serious incident, and Geoff has accurately described it as a serious incident. And, frankly, I don't think that Jack Z. was necessarily dismissing it, either. I think he had blinders on in the heat of the trade negotiations, and he wanted Josh Lueke's arm.
So I think there is definite fault to be placed on Z. Obviously, they agreed it would not cost him his job, but it would cost him Fusco. Armstrong could have let it drop more gracefully, and could have given Z and Fusco more "cover" instead of letting the media run with the "Fusco fired due to Lueke mess" storyline. That shows a lack of class on Armstrong's side, but we knew that already.
But having the incident cost Z is not unfair. I think he muffed it. And it is not Armstrong horning in on Z's bailiwick (putting together the roster). It was Z horning in on Armstrong's bailiwick (worrying about the club's standing the community) by making the call on Lueke without giving Armstrong any notice, and either not knowing the facts or not anticipating the fallout. And I don't fault Baker, at all, for reporting the facts. He operates in the real world, and the makeup of the Mariners roster is what he is assigned to report on.
Going forward saga:
We don't know that the Mariners will trade Lueke for a bag of balls. The fact is, they haven't. The fact is, Texas will take him back, and that hasn't happened. We don't know that they don't have him penciled in to their future roster. The fact is, they are sending him to the Arizona Fall League. We don't know if the club will refuse to wrap him in some PR cushion as he moves up the ladder and on to the MLB roster. It hasn't happened yet. I think they will make a PR effort, because I don't think Armstrong would be so nihilistic as to needlessly beat up on his own team just to make a point (but I could be wrong on that, too).
My own strong sense is that Z has decided to take his lumps with Josh Lueke, and everyone is going to try to make the best of it going forward (including Armstrong). It cost Fusco but now, assuming Lueke toes the line, it is over. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my sense.

c-points

Baker's willingness to back up what he writes, is the difference between chickenfeathers muckraking, and an intelligent adult debate.
Whether we agree all the time isn't what's important about a free society. What's important in America is that the idea exchange remain open and free.
Baker is one print-media guy who is able to take the internet on head-up. He therefore has little to fear from it.
:daps:, Jeff

I had thought...

I had thought "As the World Turns" had their final epsiode. I guess they have been replaced by "As the Lueke is Tossed and Turned." Sorry...but actually had to thank everyone for their comments and other boards could only wish they were as civil as this (and that is how it should be so please keep up the high standard).
Lots of turmoil here in CO as the Broncos bury a teammate. After all the years of putting up with the Brandon Marshalls and then from someone seemingly so opposite, an act much more tragic. So many of these athletes do and will make major mistakes. Standards should not vary. I think, as many have said, they have the right to not support the Mariners or such if they were to play Lueke. Maybe I missed an honest comment but I would be interested in which modern team they would then be able to root for. Could a person in good conscience trade such a player and get value for him when he should really be consistent and let him go? Let's just say that Lueke actually turned out in time to be a good guy who had served what the justice system asked. Should not that be something to hope for and applaud? The world keeps turning!

Heh

I had thought "As the World Turns" had their final epsiode. I guess they have been replaced by "As the Lueke is Tossed and Turned."

Share your admiration Jeff for the way that the community can navigate seas like this with a minimum of salt spray off the bow.
Maybe I missed an honest comment but I would be interested in which modern team they would then be able to root for. Could a person in good conscience trade such a player and get value for him when he should really be consistent and let him go?

Right, like a person who believes that his bar is a pox on the community, so sells it at 10% off to assuage the conscience :- )
There was a time when social stigmas got people run out of their chosen professions. We put all this effort into abandoning the Scarlet A, and then re-run the play with different actors....

Hear ye, hear ye....

Readers, please appreciate this site as informative for baseball critic and fun but, more importantly, a rare retreat of common sense. Well said Jeff. As much as I have enjoyed your baseball analysis (especially of pitching), your views beyond the sport far exceeds. Thanks!