Why This Month Has Been So Terrifying
A long time ago some guy once said we shouldn't judge GM's by their moves, but by their philosophies. I don't remember who said it, or where, or in what context, but it's absolutely true. How many transactions does one GM make before he gives way to another? 10? 20? 30? Willie Ballgame hit .455 over 33 at bats five years ago, and everybody knows that's a meaningless sample, so why should it be any different for executives? Sometimes good moves don't work out (Freddy Garcia trade) while bad moves do (dealing Jeremy Giambi for John Mabry). GM's just aren't around long enough for their level of success to be a direct measure of their ability.
And so it is with that in mind that I've come to be deathly afraid of Bill Bavasi's gameplan. So much so that I think it would be in the organization's best interests to send him packing now and start rebuilding the front office as soon as possible. Allow me to explain.
Three seasons ago the Mariners were the third-worst team in baseball. After a four-year run of considerable success they bottomed out and fell one loss shy of 100. What was left of the fan base cried out for help and, for the first time in forever, the front office responded by adding Richie Sexson and Adrian Beltre with the two biggest contracts in the franchise's history. While various people had various problems with the contracts themselves, the message was clear - this group of suits wasn't afraid to make a big splash or two in order to get their team back to playing competitive baseball as quickly as possible. We hadn't seen this at all under Gillick, and for once it felt good to be a player for the top talents in the free agent market.
Here's the thing, though - there is no easier job in baseball than being the GM responsible for rebuilding someone else's lousy ballclub. Ownership is all but obligated to give you a lot of money to spend, the fans want to see a name they recognize in order to become interested again, and no matter what you do you're all but guaranteed to come out looking good in the end because, at least in the short-term, it's almost impossible for the team on the field to actually do worse. You have free reign to do pretty much whatever you want, and in the winter of 2004, Bill Bavasi exercised his.
Over the course of the 2005 season it became clear that the Mariners weren't nearly as far away from being competitive again as they looked a year earlier. Even with Beltre struggling, the team had a lot of young talent getting ready to blossom at the Major League level - Felix, Betancourt, Reed, and Lopez in particular. They were strong, cheap, and talented up the middle, forming a terrific core with a ton of upside potential around which a winner could be built pretty quickly provided the front office knew what it was doing. And the fans were excited, because they saw what Bavasi did the previous offseason and thought that more could be on the way.
At the time, I declared that Bavasi's reputation would depend on how he responded to a team that wasn't too far away from winning a lot of games. I said it without any inclination one way or the other, as I still wasn't quite sure what to think about him. All I knew was that how a GM adds the finishing touches to a roster is a lot more revealing than how he spends his money after the team completely bottoms out. So I waited with bated breath.
Swing and a miss.
Oh, it wasn't all bad. Roberto Petagine and Matt Lawton looked like good moves. Nabbing Guillermo Quiroz, getting a prospect for Yorvit Torrealba, and ridding ourselves of Matt Thornton's sorry ass also made me happy. But alas, the offseason was defined by Jarrod Washburn and Carl Everett, two bad ideas that have only come to look worse with time (Johjima was handed to Bavasi on a silver platter). Washburn indicated an inability to properly evaluate pitchers, Everett indicated a reluctance towards trusting lesser-tested bats at DH, and both of them indicated that too much value was being placed on veteran-ness and a "winning attitude." These were problems.
The season went on, and the minute the Mariners caught fire Bavasi addressed his DH problem by landing Cleveland's stellar platoon for Asdrubal Cabrera and Shin-soo Choo. The two of them bombed, but I appreciated the attempt, even if it was a little too "win-now" for most of our likings. Then the Mariners collapsed and we forgot that they were ever two games above .500 as late as they were.
So we were faced with another offseason much like the last, where the Mariners were still only a few pieces away, and they had money to spend.
Swing and a miss.
In landing Miguel Batista, Jose Guillen, Horacio Ramirez, and Jose Vidro, the Mariners have given up a lot for a marginal upgrade. There's no other way around it. The team as a whole may be a few wins better in 2007 than they were in 2006, but at this cost, it's hardly justifiable.
By this point we have enough evidence to evaluate the front office's philosophies, and simply put, they aren't the philosophies of a winning organization. Their collective heart is in the right place, but they just don't have it in them to turn this into a club that wins 90 games every year, which is something you'd expect them to be able to do with a $95m budget.
It's not that they can't evaluate what does and doesn't improve the team. Guillen, Batista, Ramirez, and Vidro as a group will make the Mariners better than they were a year ago, and I don't think anyone's arguing that point. Unfortunately, Bavasi & Co. spent way too much for those upgrades, demonstrating an inability to (A) interpret proper market value for trading chips, (B) trust cheaper in-house solutions, (C) understand what's available in the bargain barrel, and (D) get creative when the free agent market isn't bearing the necessary fruit. How much better are Guillen/Batista/Ramirez/Vidro than Snelling/Thomson/Generic Starter/Broussard/Morse (platoon)? 10-20 runs? Certainly more if Snelling gets hurt, but then Vidro hasn't exactly been the model of durability in recent seasons. And don't give me that "Thomson clearly isn't healthy, that's why they didn't sign him" crap, because if his arm were really an issue the Mariners wouldn't have made him their fallback option if the meetings didn't go as planned. They had Thomson in their grasp and let him slip away so they could spend more on an equivalent - or worse - starting pitcher.
This front office is wasteful. You can afford to overpay when you're a 63-win team in need of a rebound, or when you're a 93-win team in need of that one last piece to get over the hump, but the Mariners qualify as neither. Yet they're perfectly willing to throw their resources away in pursuit of that elusive .500 season, even if said resources may have been better bets in both the short- and long-terms. And for what? More veteran reliability? I have news for you, Bill - old guys are actually less dependable than young ones. Age causes more problems than it solves. An established veteran is no more likely to have success in the coming year than an equivalently-talented youngster, and you'll have a hard time persuading me that Jose Vidro has more ability than Chris Snelling, or even Ben Broussard and Mike Morse as a platoon. In fact, you'll have a hard time persuading me that Jose Vidro isn't a guy who's going to be worse tomorrow than he is today, and worse in two days than he will be tomorrow. I'm glad we'll probably be paying for that mistake through 2009.
Needlessly wasteful. If the Mariners were determined to shake things up this winter, they could've gone cheap in a lot of places and made one huge push for an impact player. I'd much rather overpay for Manny Ramirez or Jeremy Bonderman or even Adam LaRoche than Jose Vidro and Horacio Ramirez, because at least that way you're guaranteed to get a shiny return, even if you gave away more than you would've liked to. You overpay for certainty, not junk the other team couldn't give away. The Braves were thinking about non-tendering Ramirez, and the Nationals couldn't dump Vidro on anyone. What does that tell you?
As the Mariners have gotten closer to being a competitive ballclub, the front office has gotten more conservative in roster management while remaining every bit as free in terms of how much they spend. Even the Jose Guillen move, which I like because of its upside, speaks to a reluctance to trust Chris Snelling, who deserved a shot more than anyone else in the organization. They're doing everything they can to build a decent team for 2007 in order to appease a frustrated fan base, but in doing so they've managed to limit the roster's upside in the present while dramatically reducing flexibility in the future. As Dave Cameron pointed out to me a few days ago, the Mariners will have about $45m tied up in Richie Sexson, Jarrod Washburn, Jose Vidro, Jose Guillen, and Miguel Batista this year. And, if Guillen stays healthy, they'll have about $45m tied up in the same players in 2008. Try to find another team with that much money committed to a worse group of players. The Giants were the only somewhat comparable case either of us could come up with. That's bad, because it leaves the Mariners with very little room with which to work when it comes to improving the roster. Younger players who can give you a lot of production for cheap can help with that situation, but instead the Mariners seem content to ship those guys away in order to make their flexibility worse.
This front office doesn't have what it takes to turn the Mariners into a championship ballclub. That isn't to say that a World Series title and Bill Bavasi are mutually exclusive, because you can never count luck out of the equation, but front offices don't deserve credit for luck, especially when they actively seem to be going out of their way to reduce the roster's breakout/upside potential. This front office is capable of bringing the city of Seattle a .500 baseball team, and while that's a significant achievement for any rebuilding organization, the damage they'll cause in creating that team will be substantial and limit its ability to improve in the future. We're already seeing it now.
There's an old line people like to throw around when it comes to making trades: better to deal a guy a year too early than a year too late. In this case, I think it's fair to extend that to the Mariner front office. Better to clear house now, while we still have enough young talent to build around and room to do so, than to wait until it's too late. Does anyone here actually trust Bill Bavasi to make another trade? I'm not talking about the inevitable deal where Broussard goes away for a right-handed reliever; I mean a trade where he's trying to make the team better. Anyone? What happens if the Mariners are 42-40 again next year and Bavasi thinks his team needs another arm to get ahead?
It's time for Bill Bavasi to go. He's had two years to show that he knows what it takes to build a championship ballclub, and he's failed. Not in spectacular fashion, mind you, but "not the worst GM ever" is never an appropriate benchmark. Try as he might, Bavasi just doesn't have it in him, the same way you and I don't have it in us to play in the Majors. We might work really hard, and sometimes we might get a hit or strike someone out, but at the end of the day we're short on talent. So why keep trying?
The good things that have happened under the Bill Bavasi administration so far, particularly the development of the farm system, probably outweigh the bad. It's time to end things now before that changes.
0 recs |
25 comments
Comments
I start off with a semi-useless comment
I'm still pondering the "more money invested in bad players" thing. You're probably right. The Phillies used to sort of toe that line, but with the Black Hole of Lieberthal and Bell gone, that's shaped up a bit. (I love Lieby, but that was a truly frightening bottom of the lineup sometimes.)
by Deanna on Dec 20, 2006 4:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Very well put....
by Dollar97 on Dec 20, 2006 4:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you Jeff...
by irontech on Dec 20, 2006 4:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
There's a Bigger Problem...
The Braves were thinking about non-tendering Ramirez, and the Nationals couldn't dump Vidro on anyone. What does that tell you?
Yeah. With the wonderful addition of a $12-20 million albatross (depending on if the third year's option is reached) to the payroll, we should've been able to land him for Fruto alone.
by PositivePaul on Dec 20, 2006 4:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The problem I see with firing Bavasi
I am not condoning keeping Bavasi in any way.
by Mariner John on Dec 20, 2006 4:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Unlike Barry Zito
by Jeff on Dec 20, 2006 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't fire Lincoln.
So why not try a different GM?
by eponymous coward on Dec 20, 2006 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't they part owners anyway?
The only way to depose them IIRC is to physically purchase their share of the team. And no one's got $100 mil lying around that's willing.
by Gomez on Dec 20, 2006 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Somebody give Paul Allen a call.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 20, 2006 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Larson...
by rtang on Dec 20, 2006 11:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
The scenario where this happens isn't too hard to figure out.
- one of Ichiro or King Felix gets hurt
- Vidro and Guillen's injury history shows up
C 31
1B 32
RF 31
CF 33
LF 35
DH 32
To put it another way:
Last year's Opening Day starting lineup average age: 28.9 years old
This year: 30.22
That's comparable to the team ages of Baltimore, New York and Boston last year... but Boston and New York spend on top-tier old free agents. We don't.
And the players we're using to "improve" the offense? They are basically rejects from a bad 71-91 team, Vidro and Guillen- whose largely reviled GM decided to scoop up a bunch of cheap minor leaguers AND cash in his overpaid 2B for interesting kids. Bill Bavasi is showing less understanding of his craft and WHERE his team's talent level is than Jim Fucking Bowden.
The way to improve .500 teams is NOT to add mediocre free agents and trade away kids. Bascially, Bavasi has done the baseball GM equivalent of putting the mortgage money on 13 Black in Vegas.
by eponymous coward on Dec 20, 2006 5:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
great post. thank you for the interesting read.
And these are the same guys that didn't have the money to go after Daisuke Matsuzaka.
Do you think the Red Sox would like to trade?
by mark s on Dec 20, 2006 6:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think that...
Vidro, tho? There's nothing to like about that move... nothing. Ditching a geek favorite and ANOTHER one of our bullpen arms in return for Vidro AND paying that much money, just sucks all around. If this had been a precursor to another move that would have made sense, I don't think it ends up being AS bad. Still bad, but not AS bad. But since squat has happened, we're having to eat this.
I'm just really torked we gave up two promising talents for this guy. I'd have let them have Fruto and taken on all of Vidro's contract. I'd have been fine with that. Toss in the best pure hitter in our system in years, and I get pissy, and we only get 4 million covered by the Nats?
This is Bavasi's worst move, period. I could stomach Washburn for 4 years and Everett for 1. But this one sucks so bad I can't even fathom acceptance of it.
I hope DMZ gets his list of "who to blame / credit for whatever trade / move the Ms have done since Bavasi started" up soon. I want to see how much of this is just Bill and how much is Organizational.
by TIF on Dec 21, 2006 12:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Bad Days Ahead
I don't think that it is realistic to expect a GM change until at least mid-season.
I can't think of a precedent for a club changing GMs late in the offseason. It seems highly unlikely. Teams seem content to let a bad GMs moves be exposed as terrible during the regular season before making a change.
Even then, it just isn't that common for clubs to fire GMs during the season. I can't think of many examples of that happening recently. The Royals bringing in Dayton Moore is the only one that comes to mind. It seems like the vast majority of moves come early in the offseason.
I think that we can look forward to another trade deadline under Bavasi's leadership.
Thus, the M's 2007 performance takes on huge significance. As Jeff has shown, Bavasi is just not up to the challenge of running a baseball team. Nobody - bloggers, casual fans, the local media, the mainstream media - view Bavasi's moves as anything other than complete idiocy. This guy is clearly inept. I am very concerned that he his going to dig the M's into an even deeper hole than they are currently in (Barry Zito?, another Benuardo-type deal?, worse?).
What happens next is hugely significant. Bavasi has clearly done a better job as a seller than as a buyer. Although a lot of his mid-season trades haven't worked out as well as we had hoped (Garcia, Winn, etc), those moves at least made sense at the time. When he is in win-now mode, the results have been disasterous.
I actually hope that the M's fall out of contention early and stay at the bottom of the league. We need the other clubs in the division to help save Bavasi from himself. I hope that the Rangers sign Barry Zito. That would help the M's in two ways. First, it would keep an albatross contract away from a club that already has far too much money invested in mediocrity. Second, it will improve the chances of the M's finishing last again.
What happened last season is the worst possible scenario. Poor first half performances from the rest of the division, combined with near-.500 play from the M's, could create the illusion of success. That leads to more win-now trades by Bavasi. Who here wants to see that happen?
The M's need to hit rock bottom for the owners to make radical changes. Ideally, the higher-ups would recognize that the club is being guided by an inept GM, and make the change right now. But that is not likely. Hopefully, the club tanks in the first half, and the M's bring in someone who isn't a fucking idiot before the trade deadline. Then, perhaps the M's could jettison some of those bad contracts BEFORE the season is over. But most likely, we will not see a new GM before next November. Hopefully, Bavasi won't do too much more damage before then.
by Jerry on Dec 21, 2006 6:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Compare the way
Here's a nice article about the Rays and their glut of outfielders and how they aren't just going to give them away.....
by MfaninAlaska on Dec 21, 2006 9:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Bavasi perspective
Personally, I agree that Vidro was a ridiculous target. And without Lowe, the loss of both Fruto and Soriano could be difficult. And of course the legendary Doyle -- we hardly knew ye! And the overpayment is crazy (the only defense this year is that it hasn't reached Cub-like proportions). But basically, aren't we just treading water while we wait for some decent pitchers to arrive through the system?
Cue: sharks...
by toonprivate on Dec 21, 2006 9:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
What a fan predicament.
If this team wins 88 games or more our fears are realized and Bavasi and co. keep their jobs and go out and get MORE mediocre players at the expense of our young-uns.
What to do....?
by ThundaPC on Dec 21, 2006 6:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No kidding...
by PositivePaul on Dec 21, 2006 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Losing
And it is a good season for them to do so. This club isn't a contender. If they somehow managed to win 88 games, and sneak into the playoffs by winning in a weak AL West, they would just get their asses handed to them by the east coast teams.
This offseason has made me so bitter, I just want to see the M's back on the right track. If a shitty season in 2007 is what it takes, then I guess that is worth it.
I just hope that there is some signs of improvement in organizational philosophy, talent evaluation, and roster management. Because right now, this team is hard to root for.
by Jerry on Dec 21, 2006 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'm starting to come around on the Soriano
He's a great groundball pitcher.
He's young and relatively cheap.
If his poor performances are mainly due to recent injuries he has the potential to be a decent pitcher.
He pitches with has left hand.
Basically he's Jake Woods + lots of groundballs + more experience. This isn't great but when you think about it, we've got a decent pen but really need to get our AAAA pitchers out of our rotation and at least fill it with league average pitchers.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2006 9:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well.
by Graham on Dec 21, 2006 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I guess
I guess to sum up: I hate Bavasi. I don't hate HoRam.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 21, 2006 10:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree there
by Graham on Dec 21, 2006 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mr. Hammer meet Mr. Nail
by Wiggen on Dec 26, 2006 9:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 












