Add new comment

Got nothing against Bobby V.  (or for him).  He very well could be a great manager for the Ms (or some other team).
I think what is curious to me about the whole manager situation with Seattle is there has been zero (to my ears) mention of the choice to go with a "rookie" MLB manager, rather than an MLB re-run.  Let's face it, pro-baseball is the ultimate example of the Boys Club in any major corporate entity -- where MANY dreadfully bad (by the numbers) managers are recycled on an annual basis.    (Jim Riggleman has a career .443 winning percentage, (629-757) and gets handed the Nats job.  In all of baseball history (and out of 668 managers shown on bbref), only 10 are farther under .500 than Riggleman.  Buddy Bell got 9 seasons to manager with a 519-724 record (.418 winning percentage), and a nice -205 games on the (how many consecutive games to win to reach .500 scale).
As noted in previous threads, Wak is likely to get another shot.  Like Gold Gloves, getting the first one is the trick - but afterword, they tend to flow like rain.
Z's real gamble with Wak is that he was NOT an "Experienced MLB Manager" (TM).  And, mostly because of the far above expectation results of 2009, he was viewed by many as a winning bet. 
So, my question -- was it a mistake to go after an untried manager?  If so, when IS the time to gamble on a first-timer?  And finally -- at what point is recycling the Riggleman's and Buddy Bell's a sucker bet?
The Doc suggested that MLB GMs and owners are smart enough to dump the deadweight overboard.  Is that really true?  bbref shows 668 managers.  Of those, 260 have managed fewer than 150 games, (meaning they failed to make it through one entire season - or they managed before the 150 game season era).  Basically, the "interim" managers reside here.
Of those non-interim managers - those that completed a full season, how many only got 1 year in the modern era?  Since 1950, how many guys got ONLY 154-162 games, and then didn't manage again?  About 10. 
Okay, yes, you need players to win.  And bad teams tend to go through lots of managers.  But, as near as I can tell, winning 40% of games is the breakpoint for pegging a manager as below minimum entry requirements to the MLB manager recycling program. 
But, in reviewing the 2009 and 2010 campaigns - my view is - Veteran Entitlement NEVER died.  Oh, coming out of ST in 2009, there was lip service paid to the concept.  But, by August of 2009, which regulars were guaranteed a spot in the lineup and a stock position in the batting order - with the ONLY variable preventing this being injury?
Branyan, Lopez, Beltre, Wilson, Gutz, Ichiro, Griffey/Sweeney.  That's 7 of 9 slots with full entitled veteran privilege.  Only catcher, (a competition between a pair of rookies), and LF, (a competition between a rookie and a journeyman #4 OF) were in question.
What was the difference between the 2009 team and the "fan friendly" packages from previous seasons?  NONE.  The unexpectedly good results blinded us all, (myself included), to the reality that the 2009 club was the exact same - "fan friendly" package that the club has been producing for decades.  The 2010 club is identical in EVERY respect.  The choice to bring Griffey back was not, in any way, about WINNING. 
You want to know the difference between a winning organization, and one only interested in appeasement and marketing?  The Braves had Tom Glavine, pitching his butt off in the minors, (and putting up GOOD numbers), and in the end, said, "Sorry, Tommy.  We have loved having you - but your stuff just isn't good enough any more.  Not good enough to compete for post season prizes.  Yes, you're way smarter than a number of our young arms.  But, bringing you up is just going to hurt us tomorrow AND today.  We hate to see you go ... but our #1 commitment to the fans is to try and WIN.  You could sell tickets.  But, much as it pains us - you can't help us win anymore -- not on the mound."
In Seattle, they said - KennyBoy ... sure, you only posted a 95 OPS+ in the DH slot last year, and this year you'll be 40.  But, the fans love you, and having you around is going to sell tickets.  Yeah, Mike Wilson could out-hit you in his sleep this year - but who the heck cares about Mike Wilson, except some fringe semi-loonie web fanatics, who don't know the first thing about running a business.  We think you can still post an 80 OPS+, and that coupled with a half dozen KG bobble-head nights will more than make up for a few games in the standings it might cost us.
And THIS is why Wakamatsu is so highly regarded in Seattle.  He is the perfect "face" manager.  He's intelligent, well-spoken, has zero "embarassment risk" to the club.  In short - he "fan friendly".  He is THE perfect manager for a team that believes managers have nothing actually to do with winning and losing. 
And how have *I* stayed immune to the Seattle kool-aid?  Because I don't GET to see the Wak post game interviews.  Honestly, I was kinda stunned, as I watched suspect move after suspect move being made on the field - and watched the clubhouse chemistry degenerate over time into an organization only slightly LESS professional acting than your average junior high girl's P.E. class.  And yet, lots of REALLY smart people continued singing Wak's praises.  So, I questioned MY views.  "What am I missing?"  And there was the answer - I'm missing the INTERVIEWS.
And that was when I realized, the Seattle braintrust had done it AGAIN.  They had perfectly packaged the "illusion" of change, while running the exact same scam they'd been running decades.  If the team is "likeable", in the end, "most" of the fans won't care if we don't win pennants.  So, why fire Wak?  Because under his leaderskip (sic) the team is no longer likeable.  Griffey ... EVEN Griffey became a toxin!?! 
The ultimate, ugly reality is that losing is perfectly acceptable in Seattle.  What isn't acceptable is losing the "fan friendly" atmosphere.  And neither Bobby V. nor the next rookie wunderkind manager is likely to change that.