Great piece, man. Really tremendous.

Beyond a certain threshold, the success of high performing executives does not correlate with their IQ. It takes a certain minimum level of brains to do the job, the supersmart guys aren't really any better at it than the ones who are 'just smart enough'. Conversely, those with a high level of 'emotional intelligence' DID correlate to higher levels of success. If you know how to work with people well, and keep them motivated to work for you - you're going to be more successful. If Z is smart enough to do the job, but a piss-poor people manager - the M's may have some trouble ahead. Meaning this - when Jack alienates important assets (international scouting, for example) and they quit, the M's have to replace that talent with something unknown. I'm not suggesting that a crusty smart guy won't succeed, there's plenty of examples. But that same smart guy, but a little less crusty, has a heckuva lot higher chance of success. Jack deals with folks at an admin level - whether he's a cranky SOB or not probably won't matter a lot to the players, especially the youth. But the analysts and the scouts and the manager and the coaches who have to answer to him daily - it matters. Jack makes makes decisions based on the input from a lot of people. The less those people trust him and his tactics, the less likely (I belive) they are to go the extra mile and continue to give him good info.
And all those fledgling Mariners who are excited to play don't have any idea about the politcs in the org. It takes a while to see where the snakes lie if you're starstruck about making it to the bigs. A good manager will appropriately shield them from this, and thus the impact of Z's people skills, or lack thereof, should be felt at an organizational pipeline level over time and perhaps less on the field. Unless he hires a jacka$$ for a manager, in which case - all bets are off there, too.
As Doc says - just my $0.02., and probably overvalued at that.

Curto's second response was really an insightful one on his part, I thought. In addition to kicking the M's FO in the man region, the piece definitely puts the entire Seattle sports scene on notice. We've never seen the like of this before. The M's are a pretty soft target but there are others...

what you describe as yourself is me. And they put up with ME here. So fire away with comments. The only people that run into trouble here are those who are arrogant and think they know more than anyone else, and act like they know more than they do.

can you imagine Geoff Baker with his current remit in the last days of Don James and the decade that followed in UW sports? Or the Neuheisel era?. Since the UW really does depend on public money, Curto is right - their hatches better get battened!

-

I have been contemplating the Baker article and your original response, figuring everyone would have moved on before I contributed. I appreciate the reset, but still do not have a crisp synthesis of my own. Instead, I will just add some points that I hope further the conversation.
1) Let me start by stating that the article beautifully makes your point that Armstrong and Lincoln are the core problem. I must admit that I had not been convinced previously. Didn't disagree, but was still on the fence.
2) Zduriencik had no chance. I clearly remember when Bazasi was fired and Zduriencik was hired, that Armstrong said that Bavasi had been given more freedom than previous GM's, so any notice that his failure was a sign of meddling couldn't be true. At the time, this caused some conceptual dissonance for me because I had been reading your persuasive characterization of committee decision making as a core weakness of the organization.
The speculated narrative now has clarity. Armstrong and Lincoln resented carrying the failure of a 'lesser man (Bavasi)', and became determined to hire someone green enough that he would not have the credibility to fight against their meddling. This is why Zduriencik had no chance. He was specifically chosen for two reasons. (1) He was in over his head and would not present viable opposition regarding the management of the MLB team and (2) he had credibility as a scouting director and would rebuild the minors.
I don't think Zduriencik is a bad guy. It is because he isn't a bad guy, that long time acquaintances like Fusco and Blengino are so disillusioned by Zduriencik's behavior. It rings true to me that the stress of being in over his head and struggling to stay afloat could be a clear origin of Zduriencik's bad behavior. Carmen Fusco was a lifelong friend that Zduriencik cut loose to save his job. If that were Zduriencek's true demeanor, don't you think it would have reared it head earlier in their relationship? Wouldn't Fusco have been disappointed, but not bitter about it?
3) The way you characterize middle management's role in an organization does not ring true to me.  Zduriencik's job is two fold: keep the people above happy and provide the people below the resources and space to do their jobs.  Zduriencik should be a buffer between Lincoln and Wedge, not a conduit.  In a successful organization, leadership sets the targets and the boundary conditions within which to pursue them (win baseball games without loosing money and without acquiring players convicted of sexual assault).  Firing Zduriencik for the Luecke acquistion could be justified; micromanaging the teaching of situational hitting, not so much.
4) I realize this could question could appear snarky, but I promise that is not the intent.  In addition to extensive consulting in high level executive settings, I presume you also spent many years working within F-500 companies?  The reason I ask, is my experience is that consultants get a very skewed view of organizational politics.  My experience is consultants are hired to appease management from above or they are hired by those who lack the conviction to act on their own impressions.  Granted, my experience is not F-500, but is a lot like Boeing where people lose their jobs when the billion dollar government contract goes elsewhere.
5) Blengino comes across as a foolishly naive -- he too appears to have been in over his head.
6) Zduriencik should be judged based on the product on the field.  It's not looking good, but he'll get another year.  I think there is zero chance Zduriencik is about to burst out of his cocoon and reveal himself as genus Gillick butterfly, but there is a minor chance that he invests MLB dollars in as close to sure things as exist in baseball (Robinson Cano and David Price), so that his expertise in amateur scouting and player development can be the difference maker.  That is how the Atlanta Braves and New York Yankees did it in the 90's.

Bavasi was picked because he would be easy to manipulate. He was young and had been fired from his only other GM job so he wasn't going to resist Chuck and Howards intrusions. This is apparent from the fact that he never got to hire his own manager (and the managers reported to Chuck and Howard) and Armstrong was in his office constantly. They very deliberately pitted the manager and GM against each other so that they could be involved in every decision. They may have claimed that they weren't meddlers but that was just a self-serving lie.
Hiring Jack represented a different tack. He was older than Bavasi and very highly regarded within the industry. He had much more clout than Bavasi did and he was given a lot more freedom. This is demonstrated by his ability to hire and fire the manager. He was not intended to be a lap dog the way Bavasi was.

Two quick items: 1) Baker’s column rings 100% true with my experience, & 2) every sports team in Seattle needs to be ready for his new role
— Mike Curto (@CurtoWorld) December 8, 2013

I find myself sometimes thinking of something stupid I said at some point or another long ago. I've said many stupid things in my life, oh well.
I honestly find it that people seem to avoid pointing it out here more often than not. I don't mind the learning that comes from having those things pointed out because it's generally not too direct here and doesn't lead to name calling and IQ debates ;)
My problem is that I often write things most of the way, get distracted by something or another and find it either not timely or just not worth pursuing when I get back to it. Sometimes it's because I researched and found my own error. A-ha! But there's a good mix of people who think different ways and it's rare to see someone arguing entirely alone when a topic gets a lot of response and interchange.
Anyway, I love talking with you guys. I do read a lot more than I write most of the time. I still feel stupid occasionally.
Loved the piece and learned a lot from it. It's not a side of the game that I feel confident in any convictions on it. Reading all your insights on it has been welcomed.

Give this one a Wilkie Button!
MarinersAnalyst on MarinersCentral several years ago ran a series of heavily researched articles documenting that the commonly perceived business acumen and success of the Lincoln/Armstrong management team is a myth, at least with regards to the Mariners franchise. It is absolutely true that the duo has presided over a decade in which franchise value increased sizeably. But as you point out, kriskrosed, they have done so in a period when, excuse the hyperbole, a trained monkey could have done so.
I mean really. Who could have bungled the franchise more than Lincoln/Armstrong have done? And yet the rising tide has still managed to lift their boat. The measurement of their acumen and success is not whether franchise value has increased, but whether it has increased to the degree that it could and should have given the cirumcstances inherited going into the last decade. And the answer clearly is that Lincoln/Armstrong's business sense is seriously overrated, IMO. If they were the proprietors of my multimillion dollar business they would long ago have been fired for business reasons alone, never mind their baseball failures.

An excellent point bsr. Are we to think that Baker has collected all his ammunition and used it up in one fell blow? Or should we expect that he has available some serious followup material? Having seen the attempt by the M's to brush his story away as the complaints of sourpusses, does Baker's history lead us to believe he will simply melt into the background and accept the marginalization of his material?

You read various takes, many with some seriously constructive contributions (from the standpoint of understanding). Kudos Gaffer (kgaffney). You have taken many elements and woven them into a coherent scenario, admittedly speculative to some degree, but illuminative taken as a whole.

Jeff, I thought some context would provide additional clarity to your perspective for me. As I hope you understand, it wasn't a case of me doubting the validity of your point of view.
@CoolPapaBell: I agree that may very well be true, but it does contradict my memory of what Armstrong or Lincoln (can't remember for sure) said at the time. Though, as misterjonez and you state, this could have just been a self-serving message. All the same, I struggle to resonate with your characterization of Bavasi and Zduriencik. Zduriencik was getting a significant promotion, while Bavasi was beening hired to do a job he had performed previously. Sure he had been fired, but that is par the course. Zduriencik's age is a detriment to his independence, not an asset. This is likely his only shot at a GM job, so he is indebted to Lincoln and Armstrong in a manner distinct from Bavasi.
@DaddyO: Thanks for the complement. My narrative is clearly speculative, and CoolPapaBell is correct that it doesn't align with all the facts. I do stand by the notion that Zduriencik's struggles are consistent with someone in over his head and that Armstrong and Lincoln like it that way and likely planned it that way.

My instinct is in complete agreement with you on this.

Sunlight in dark places is the best disinfectant -- Baker has done a great service to all M's fans with this article. Lincoln's meddling has been exposed for ALL to see, not just hard-core fans and insiders who were already aware of the severe dysfunction in the M's FO. Exposing a problem is often the first step to resolving it. Looking on the bright side: half the problem (Armstrong) is leaving soon. Hiring a strong, independent, baseball-experienced replacement for Armstrong would go a long way to solving the remaining half by putting a baseball-knowledgable buffer between GMZ and Lincoln. I am hopeful that Lincoln renders the franchise a great service by hiring such a person. (Who are good candidates - Larry Beinfest? Kim Ng? Others?)

but to me it is hope against likelihood that Lincoln will hire a strong, independent replacement for Armstrong. He has shown no propensity to do so in the past, though perhaps you are right that Baker's "service" is sufficient to scare him into doing so while the spotlight is on him. Still, if it is possible to combine hopefulness with doubtfulness, that describes my concern that it is Lincoln doing the hiring.

I haven't contributed much to the whole Baker thread, mostly because I'm not sure I know enough to contribute meaningfully. But I'm aware of this, the Baker info and the Curto stuff remains only part of the iceberg. There's a lot we aren't/haven't/won't see, really until Z makes his stand on this. And, of course, that will be filtered through his needs, just as the others have been, too.
I'm not sure I see dysfunction here. I do see tumult, but that isn't always dysfunction. I have a daughter who will be 18 in 10 days and another who is 15. Between they and their mother, there is occasional tumult in my house. I don't think there is ever dysfunction.
You get the idea.
I see Z as a GM searching: To find himself, to identify and trust his abilities, to find the right fit at Manager, to carefully pick (and win the ones he picks) his battles with the shirts upstairs.
Do you think he quotes Hamlet? I wouldn't be surprised.
The Wak/Figgins fiasco really is the best example of Z struggling to find his GM self. He blew that one from top to bottom, except in the hiring of Wak, who I think was a fine manager. Here Z struggled mightily. Figgins was a bad hire, compounded by Z's stubbornness/failure to acknowledge it. Figgins had value....if dumped quickly. Wak went, however, not Figgins. How could he (Z) dump his first big FA signing? I'm sure that was his mindset. But in the end, he had made a bad bet, and then he raised it.
That move, I think caused him to distrust SABR-ish numbers and to trust more in his own "old-time" scouting sense.
He hasn't chased a "SABR" type FA since. Even Jaso was an OBP/quasi-masher guy. Z's chased bonkers, or guys who once did bonk. OPB is hardly a SABR-ish monopoly now, BTW.
I've been no real Z fan, but I think he's now begun to find his way as a GM, in relation to how he evaluates player talent. Part of it was that he got lucky in two badly advised trade/signing efforts last year...and I think he knows it. I don't know what the McClendon hiring says. I think it says that he wasn't willing to risk hiring a guy with no managerial (MLB experience). He played this one safely. I would have preferred the guy from Oakland, but I'll go along.
So I think what we see, is an oldtime baseball guy (a great judge of young talent but not of comparative talent, at the MLB level) who was wrapped in a SABR image. It was an image he couldn't carry off.......and I think that led to much of the tumult of which we read.
He's better now. Which isn't to say he's good. He's certainly been hobbled by the shirts, to some degree....but then they are the shirts. They have a role, I think Z has been better at dealing with the shirts above than dealing with the shirts (including the Manager) below. There is probably a psychological explanation there. My bet is he still sees himself as a talent finder, not an organizational pilot.
But there is much below the surface of this we haven't seen.....and won't get a better picture of until Z is no longer an M.
moe

I'm sure the M's organization is dysfunctional, and it sounds like it's horrible to work for Jack (although I am certain the line is long for folks who would die for the opportunity to make a living working for the Mariners), but I just don't see the connection between all this meddling and Jackie meaness and the inability of Ackley to hit, Montero to catch and hit, Franklin to keep from having a second half freshman slump, Hultzen from tearing up his shoulder, Capps from getting a clue, Wilhelmsen from rediscovering his curve ball, Smoak from meeting his potential, Guti from staying healthy (we sent him to the Mayo clinic for heavens sake!) and etc., etc. Even the horrible Leuke disaster turned into a big plus for the Mariners as they flipped him for Jaso. If Lincoln and Armstrong's ditzyness kept Fielder and Hamilton from signing with us, then that kinda worked to our favor, because I'd much rather have Cano at these prices.
If there is some sort of deficit on this team that is truly reflecting on the on field performance, it appears to be coaching at the major league level. The kids come in with minor league success, and have limited success translating to the major league level, potential falls far short of reality. From Baker's article, it appeared Z wanted to discuss this with Wedge before the contract extension: Here is how Baker described it:
-----
Wedge met Zduriencik in his private suite Thursday before the season’s final series. He wanted his status resolved before players left for the winter, but says Zduriencik began a point-by-point recitation of coaching staff issues.
“He kept saying more and more stuff about early work, about bullpen (sessions), about our starting pitchers,” Wedge said. “You can pick anything to death if you want to. But I’m not going to sit there and let him crush our coaches. I said ‘I can’t believe you’re doing this. Shame on you.’ ”
Wedge told Zduriencik he’d honor his contract through season’s end, then walked out.
“I’m not going to stand by and let them treat other human beings the way they treat human beings,” he said. “I’m not going to stand by and let them disrespect the game.”
-----
What am I missing here?
I went back and read and researched the whole Gillick and Piniella and Jeff Nelson controversies, and it appears the whole problem was that they all wanted to spend more money and make more deals in August than Lincoln and Armstrong were willing to. I totally understand the frustration there, but I also don't remember any low hanging fruit available in July and August 2002 and 2003 that would have served us well. Of course, I could think of a number of really helpful guys who could have stepped in and given us a real shot in the arm had we not dealt them earlier for similar reasons: guys like Ortiz, Jose Cruz Jr., Jason Varitek, Derick Lowe.
There is FO dysfunction - but I gotta say that to my eyes there's a lot less of it the last couple years than there's been over the course of 1997-2010 as the team lunged from trading out of desperation, to not signing FA's when they needed to, to signing the wrong ones, to trading in desperation, etc. etc.
This is the only time I can really say I understand what the team is trying to accomplish. Doc said it well in his "We're at that Point" post. We are moving from Nice Night at the Ballpark" to We're Playing to Win. So, yeah, there is dysfunction at the top. But a lot less of it than I remember there being for a long time.

Right out of the gate Mitch asks him about how many people Baker interviewed for the article, and as part of his answer he says that he interviewed about "two dozen" people. Interestingly, he said about half were people currently working inside the organization. These, of coure, were not willing to speak for attribution. http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/media/podcast-mitch-in-the-morning-ondeman...

Baker also said that the Mariners had advance notice that the story was coming out. IIRC, he said they knew the rough outline of what was coming on the Monday before it came out. The story broke on Saturday evening. The Cano signing went down overnight Thursday night, again IIRC.
The point is, it raises the question, did the M's press on with signing Cano in spite of the story (i.e., had they made the decision prior to their knowledge of the story?), or because of it (i.e., had they made the decision after learning about the story, and was the Cano signing at least in part a reaction to it)?
There is, of course, a third possibility, that they made their decision after learning about the story, but the story did not have a major impact on their decision to sign Cano. The Mariners had made clear their intent to make a splash well before they knew about the story. But was the size of the splash they ended up making influenced by the need to overcome an even bigger hurdle than the one they faced before the story? And dare we even wonder if the timing of the deal (overnight Thursday night) was influenced by what they might have learned about the timing of the actual release of the story? Is it possible that instead of Baker supposedly trying to sabotage the M's best moment in forever, the M's hurried the conclusion of their attempts to sign Cano in order to get it completed before the story broke?
By the way, here is a link to an interview with Baker on 710 ESPN Radio Seattle:http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=9964939&p=38&n=