On the other hand, I think Wedge is wrong on the specifics
Yes, it's true that Eric Wedge ripped a big chunk of the lid off of the Pandora's Box within which lies the realm of the Mariners brass.
And, combined with the timing of Geoff Baker leaving the Mariners beat, and the end of another frustrating season, among other things, all manner of passion was unleashed.
Not a bad thing.
But hold the phone just a minute.
Though there's nothing wrong with a little "Front Office = Bad; Those fighting Front Office = Good" it seems like maybe a little perspective is lost.
There are many issues, of course, with respect to the state of the organization, but it seems to me that two lessons were learned from the Bavasi era:
- No "Silva" contracts -- no big-money, long-term deals for non-impact players
- No "Choo" trades -- no coughing up legitimate prospects for non-impact players
Clearly, pursuing Prince Fielder or Josh Hamilton would not constitute a "Silva" contract; and trading for Justin Upton would not be a "Choo" trade.
Now ... what, specifically, was Eric Wedge asking for, and should he have gotten it?
1. He says the organization should "stick with" kids.
The "kids" that should have been stuck with -- Ackley, Smoak, Saunders, Montero -- were certainly stuck with. I'm not sure what the gripe is.
If he means the club should have tried harder to squeeze something out of Carlos Peguero or Casper Wells or Trayvon Robinson or Alex Liddi ... well, he's just wrong. Other teams have come to same conclusion.
Doug Fister was a huge mistake, but not because the club didn't "stick with him." Zduriencik viewed him, in NFL terms, as a backup quarterback he could cash in for draft picks. Not only was he wrong, his draft picks mostly flopped. But that's not the failure that Wedge is indicting him for.
2. He says the organization needed more veterans with long-term deals
Given that the organization did pursue Fielder, Hamilton and Upton, the only way you can read this indictment is a demand for "Silva" contracts or "Choo" trades.
Zduriencik has, indeed, been steadfast in not doing that. Whether that is from him, or from the upper brass reacting to the Bavasi fallout, I don't know.
But I don't think it's grounds for criticism.
I think they are right to keep their powder dry. It may be frustrating to go with Bay or Harang types, but why make a commitment in years or players for guys who aren't any better?
3. Had Wedge earned the right to demand different moves from the brass?
No.
In the economic world there are "commodity" products/services and "value-added" products/services.
"Commodities" are difficult to distinguish one source from the other. You generally don't go seek out oranges from a specific farm or oil from a specific refinery.
Wedge is a "commodity" manager in my book. He meets the minimum standards, but doesn't necessarily bring anything out of the ordinary to the table.
[Aside: Zduriencik may well be a "commodity" GM as well, but he brings with him McNamara, who is very much a "value-added" draft guru.]
Some managers might earn the right to expect certain personnel from the front office, but I don't really think Wedge has.
So he may be the bold "truth-teller" and deserve credit for that, but that doesn't mean he's right.