Add new comment

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.