Silva, the Long Term, and the Silver Lining
Hey, I am as pissed off about this move as the rest of you. However, I would like to focus on the bright side of this whole debacle.
Unlike most other silver lining explanations of this move, I am nost going to waste anyones time BSing about how this is going to help the club win more games, because signing Silva for more than $5 mil per year is pretty much stupid. He isn't a terrible pitcher. He is just the type of guy that is useful only before he hits free agency. Only stupid teams sign guys like this to multi-year deals in free agency. However, the M's are a stupid team. That is where the bright side of this deal is.
The biggest problem the M's have is their general manager and front office. It is pretty much a 100% certainty that this is a 'win or else' year for Bavasi et al. Thus, we are watching Bill make desperation moves to save his ass. That is what is so frustrating about this club. They don't realize that they aren't legit contenders, and they don't have any clue how to get to that point in the first place. The inability to evaluate talent is an unconquerable obstacle in this organization. They just won't be a good team unless changes are made at the top.
I am hoping that this will be one of the last nails in Bavasi's coffin. As it stands now, the M's aren't anything resembling a contender. The Angels are far and away the biggest lock to win their division in baseball. Adding Silva, plus a few additional minor moves - maybe one of the guys coming off injury like Clement, Colon, Jennings, Garcia or Prior - aren't going to be enough for the M's to close the gap.
Assuming that this is the big move of the offseason, I would argue that the M's are barely a .500 club. That is enough to get Bavasi fired. Most likley, the Angels will win around 95 games and the M's will be effectively out of contention by July.
Hopefully, this is the worst that Bavasi does to fuck up the roster that his replacement will inherit. If that is true, this isn't the end of the world.
If Bavasi manages to not trade away any young talent or lock us in to other terrible contracts, the M's roster will be in relatively good shape. Sexson, Ibanez, Bloomquist, and Johjima are off the books after 2008. Washburn, Beltre, Batista, and Vidro are off the books the following year. While guys like Washburn, Batista, and Silva aren't good contracts, they aren't immovable albatrosses either, especially with the price of mediocre starters going up every year. By mid-season, and especially by the next offseason, those contracts could actually have trade value. If Bavasi gets canned, his successor could move some contracts and regain flexibility pretty easily.
The M's have some near-ML-ready young talent and a few guys locked up on good value contracts for a few years. This would be an easy club to get back into contention, if we only had the right GM.
Hopefully, this is Bavasi's last failure. In that sense, perhaps this is some sort of rock-bottom moment. Sorta like the DWI that forces an alcoholic to re-evaluate his life and get help. I certainly hope so, because it sucks going into an offseason knowing that the guy running the club just doesn't get it.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How many times
Hopefully, this is Bavasi's last failure.
I have absolutely zero hope that that is the case. I'm totally projecting here, I have no sources in the FO or the Mariner organization, but it seems to me that in the eyes of Lincoln/Armstrong, Bavasi's doing a good job.
I'm guessing they probably look at the following: Bavasi has improved the team's W/L, attendance hasn't dropped off a cliff (it has dropped, but nowhere near catastrophic levels) despite missing the playoffs for five years, and the 'average fan' no doubt sees the acquisition of Carlos Silva as an unrequited positive. He's a big name, after all.
It is pretty much a 100% certainty that this is a 'win or else' year for Bavasi et al.
Nope. that was last year, and the M's improved enough in the W column that I think Bavasi's off the hook in 2008.
Bavasi had a very public mandate last year - improve or be gone. This year, there's been no such statement; I may be reading what's not there, but it seems to me that the brass are happy with the job he did.
I would argue that the M's are barely a .500 club. That is enough to get Bavasi fired.
I'm as unhappy with Bavasi as the next fan, but I'm also not thinking in terms of "when Bavasi gets fired", because barring a 42-120 season, the reality is he's probably not going anywhere for the 2008 season, and probably beyond that.
As long as the M's remain in mid-table obscurity, winning more than they lose and sniffing the playoffs until August, I think Bavasi's probably safe. That depresses the hell out of me, but it's also probably the reality of the situation.
Bavasi doesn't need to win
For reference, here's an old thread from this very blog:
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/comments/2007/1/12/134528/346/22#22
You'll note that, back then, Bavasi was hanging by a thread. The team had to make the playoffs, or else. Turns out, "or else" was pretty much the same as what came before.
So how do we know this is the year when Bavasi actually needs to win, as opposed to the other years when we only thought that he needed to win? The answer is, we don't. It's entirely possible that the M's could lose 100 games and still bring Bill back for another try. Anyone who pretends to 100% certainty is fantasizing.
No, they had to contend or else
by Graham MacAree on Dec 20, 2007 8:48 AM PST up reply actions
Wrong
Last year, the ultimatum for Bavasi was that the team needed to show marked improvment for him to stay on. I don't remember ever seeing anyone in the front office say 'make the playoffs or your done'.
Nobody would argue that the M's didn't take a huge step forward last year. Its an empirical fact.
The lack of noise from Lincoln has everything to do with how many times his 'hot seat' comments were quoted in the media. I am sure that he regretted that quote the minute after he issued it.
What I was arguing is that the M's are set up to slide backwards in the standings. Barring huge moves, I don't see them hitting 88 wins again, and all it would take is a little bad luck for them to slide back under .500.
I think that costs him his job.
I hope it does.
Um...
Last year, the ultimatum for Bavasi was that the team needed to show marked improvment for him to stay on. I don't remember ever seeing anyone in the front office say 'make the playoffs or your done'.
I don't remember PDB making that statement either. He's saying that as long as ticket sales are still up and the team "contends" that will be enough for Lincoln.
Also...
The problems with the Ms goes WAAAAYYYYY beyond the GM spot (though Bavasi's weaknesses magnify them). This is an organization wedded to 19th Century models of player evaluation, player development and roster construction. No way is that fixed by getting rid of Bavasi. Need to sweep out the entire front office (the assistance to the presidents, the various directors pertaining to players, etc.) up to and including the President and anyone else that doesn't report to him but does to the CEO (and replace him as well).
But when it comes to ticket prices
Really?
by PositivePaul on Dec 19, 2007 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
Just for the record
/*should probably not drink soda at lunch
That'll be Friday
i wish you the best of luck
by seattlebruin on Dec 19, 2007 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
It's good to have goals
It was chianti for me today.
Still, decent Italian food, and a few glasses of chianti isn't a bad way to spend a few hours of the work day.
We're probably going to be an 85 win team
by Graham MacAree on Dec 19, 2007 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
Make that 60
Wasn't Bavasi's nail in the coffin
Oh, wait - yeah, then we hired him.
the log
by OlyOle on Dec 19, 2007 2:01 PM PST reply actions
He has a 2009 vesting option
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 19, 2007 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
And if they trade the farm for Bedard?
by eponymous coward on Dec 19, 2007 9:05 PM PST reply actions
We'll go somewhere else for milk.
M's are lactose intolerant
by kentroyals5 on Dec 19, 2007 10:25 PM PST up reply actions

by 










