Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

Zduriencik fires Fontaine

Mr by Teej on

(There's some chatter about this in the previous Zoinks! thread, but I figure it deserves its own thread in which we can cry.)

Jack Zduriencik has fired Bob Fontaine, according to Larry Stone.

One source said that Fontaine was called into a meeting with Zduriencik on Monday and informed that he was being dismissed. According to the source, "He didn't even have a chance to fight for his job."

Now we just need him to fire Bob Engle, find a high-level job for Lee Pelekoudas, and we'll be back in business!

Sigh.

I don't know a ton about the inner workings of the Mariners organization, but I know that if there were a list of people the team needed to get rid of, Fontaine would be damn near the last name on it.

Good luck in the future, Bob. You should be able to find a job no problem. Milwaukee could probably use some help.

0 recs | Comment 82 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

That's a bummer

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Oct 28, 2008 8:46 AM PDT   0 recs

I should point out that I respect Z's right to rebuild any way he sees fit.

I just think you could have offered Fontaine a spot somewhere else in the organization — assuming he was OK with a demotion or whatever it would be.

by Teej on Oct 28, 2008 8:53 AM PDT   0 recs

I wonder if he would have fought for his job.

I’m bummed to see him go, but at the same time his particular skill is duplicitous with Zoinks here now.

by Sec 108 on Oct 28, 2008 9:11 AM PDT   0 recs

Duplicative is close, but still probably not the right word.

Firefox spell-check doesn’t like it. But it’s a word in at least one dictionary, so fuck you, Firefox.

I vote for “redundant.”

by Teej on Oct 28, 2008 9:27 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Sure as hell don't, do I?

Thanks for the lesson johnbai.

by Sec 108 on Oct 29, 2008 8:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Just razzin' you

Also taking the opportunity to channel the Princess Bride for a moment.

by johnbai on Oct 29, 2008 11:22 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm really mixed on this...

Part of me wonders how much Fontaine REALLY had control over the draft. If indeed he had full control over the draft, then a part of me is happy. I mean Morrow over Miller AND Lincecum? Clement over Tulowitzki? Drafting Mangini period? While Fontaine gets a lot of love in the saber-friendly blogosphere, I’ve never fully seen why. At the same time – he’s not perfect, but he’s pretty good, and definitely MUCH better than Mattox was.

OTOH – I also question why this was the first move he made. While Fontaine may not have been perfect, he certainly was at the bottom of the list of problems with this team. It frightens me that the new GM comes in and starts purging from the wrong side of that list. I know Zduriencik wants to be in charge. He wants to bring his own guys in and really change things up. But he’s straining the gold rather than the dross and that doesn’t sit well with me…

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Oct 28, 2008 9:17 AM PDT   0 recs

He had control

Also, Krynzel over Utley? Jones over Kotchman? Drafting Mark Rogers at all?

That’s not analysis, Paul.

by davidcameron on Oct 28, 2008 9:50 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I like to think of it as

Willie Bloomquist over Pujols.

But that kind of hind sight is ridiculous in all actuality.

You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.

by bluemax on Oct 28, 2008 1:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

And that response isn't analysis either

Not meant to be, sure, but c’mon – how was this supposed to work in your mind?
The M’s just signed a GM in large part because he led the best scouting org in baseball. From what I’ve seen, Baseball America/Baseball Prospectus et al. would rank Z’s crew ahead of Fontaine’s on the scouting side.
So with Zoinks as GM, we could get two org models:
1) Zoinks is brought in to manage the existing scouting/player development group. That’s good because Fontaine’s done well, but it would amount to hiring Z as a manager, not as a player devel. guru.
2) Zoinks brings in the people that made the Brewers’ scouting department the envy of baseball. That’s great, because hey, they’re awesome. The downside of course is that you’re making an improvement to the healthiest part of the org.

Still, it seems to me that the decision was made when they hired Zduriencik. There’s no reason for Fontaine to stay on in a lower position, and it doesn’t seem likely that Z would simply keep the current managers. So what could’ve happened here? Would you really prefer that Z simply manage the current staff? Or just replace Benny Looper/Greg Hunter?

I’d love to have Fontaine PLUS Blengino PLUS Z, but I just can’t think of a realistic scenario in which that happens.

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 10:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Here's an alternate conversation

"Hey, Bob, you’ve done some really good work here. I’m going to rebuild this organization around the kids you drafted. Moore, Clement, Tui, Saunders, Raben, Morrow, Aumont… that’s a hell of a running start you gave me. Thanks man, I really appreciate it. But, you know, the fans are expecting a change in directions, and they need to see some moves to show that this isn’t more of the same. I’ve got this guy named Tony Blengino who I think could be a really good scouting director, and he deserves a shot. What do you think about a structure where he takes over the administrative side of the draft, gettings the director of scouting label, and you remain as the VP of domestic scouting? You can take Tony under your wing, help him learn, and the three of us can have some great, great drafts together.

Obviously, if you still want to run a draft and another club gives you that shot, we’ll give you a great recommendation. It’s really your call, Bob – we’d love to have you stick around and have your wisdom in the draft room, but if you want to move on, I understand. What do you think?"

by davidcameron on Oct 28, 2008 10:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Would either B or F go for that?

My money’s on no, but I suspect we’ll never know. Blengino would be in line to become scouting director in Milwaukee I presume (he or McNamara), so it’d be somewhat surprising if he’d take a job working for Fontaine here. Not impossible, mind you, but surprising.

From Fontaine’s side, he’d probably be wondering what exactly his role would be in a structure like that. New GM brings over hand-picked scouting director, but I’m still VP of Domestic Scouting or something… hmm, is this a soft landing? Would I have an actual voice? There’s potential for this structure to work, but there’s just as much downside risk.

Plus, if he’s going to rebuild around anything, my money’s on Engle’s kids, not Fontaine’s. Ramirez, Triunfel, Pineda and, of course, Felix. Maybe some Wlad thrown in there.

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 11:10 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You think he'd rather be unemployed?

Even a VP of scouting isn’t going to make buckets of money, and the economy kinda sucks right now. I’m pretty sure Bob would rather have a job while he’s looking for a new one than be unemployed.

And you really think Ramirez/Triunfel/Pineda/Wlad is > Clement/Morrow/Aumont/Saunders/Tui/Moore/Raben? I’ve been driving the Triunfel bandwagon, but it’s pretty clear to me that the core of the M’s prospect base is currently domestic, not international.

by davidcameron on Oct 28, 2008 11:28 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If we're counting guys who are already on the big club,

then throw Felix/Lopez on the Engle side of the ledger.

The core of the M’s prospect base is mixed now, which points to strong improvement in domestic scouting. No doubt. But after The Trade, a lot of it is still in the low-minors (Raben, Aumont). At higher levels, it’s something of a mixed bag – Saunders is great, but so is Halman. Tui’s…coming along, but so is Valbuena.

There’s also the obvious point that the domestic side SHOULD dominate any team’s prospect lists: you get to draft 50 kids, and sign ~25-35 of them every year, each one of whom has more of a track record than int’l 16 year olds. I love the progress the team’s made in the draft, but if I have to keep one of Engle/Fontaine, I go with the former 10 times out of 10.

Finally, there’s no way Fontaine stays unemployed. The economy sucking has no bearing – zero – on Fontaine’s job prospects, it seems to me. He’ll get snapped up quite quickly.

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 11:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, Felix and Lopez were signed pre-Fontaine

If we were really trying to compare Engle’s contributions to the core of the next good M’s team to Fontaine’s, we’d basically have to start at 2004 and go from there, since Bob didn’t really have the chance to help the team in 2003 or before.

And I’d actually debate the “obvious point” that the domestic side should dominate. The M’s have consistently spent as much or more on international prospects (relative to the rest of baseball) as they have on signing draft picks. Yes, you can sign 25 to 35 kids every year, but realistically, most of those are organizational filler – Bob has to spend a lot of those picks making sure the Aquasox can put a team on the field, while the international scouts can just shoot for the moon all the time.

The M’s international scouting budget is huge. None of this is to denigrate Engle, but he grew this side of the organization by outspending everyone else. Yes, he had the foresight to go new places, but most teams weren’t giving people the budget to go setup shop in Europe and start scouting Italy.

This idea of Engle as a scouting genius who c an pick superstars off the scrap heap, while Fontaine just kind of muddles along with some hits and misses, is a wrong, weird view of how the talent in the organization got here. Engle’s done a good job, Fontaine did a great job, and losing either one makes the organization worse.

by davidcameron on Oct 28, 2008 12:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Let me ask this: why SHOULDN'T the M's spend more - relative to other teams - in int'l scouting?

Isn’t that a great to maximize your return on investment?
Second, saying that, “The M’s have consistently spent as much or more on international prospects (relative to the rest of baseball) as they have on signing draft picks,” doesn’t tell us much given that they haven’t spent a lot on signing picks. Yes, not signing Fields has something to do with that, but they’ve shied away from signability guys in recent years. Maybe that’s a smart move, but they could spend a pittance on int’l scouting and still spend more relative to the amount they’ve spent on draft picks if we’re measuring spending vis a vis the rest of the league.

Engle’s budget should be huge. This is where the team has consistently leveraged relatively small investments to create a ton of value for the team. And I’m not sure I can totally agree that they’ve outspent everyone else. I’d love to know what Helfgott would say to this, but there’s simply no way they’ve outspent anyone in the Dominican. Venezuela, sure, but that’s been small potatoes until recently. The Dodgers and Yanks had to spend more on the whole than the M’s did.

This idea of Engle as scouting genius came about because he’s produced this team’s greatest star as well as some promising prospects. I’m not denigrating Fontaine to say that this move is defensible; I’m saying that he’s been replaced by two of the tiny, tiny fraction of people who I think may be better. Again, that’s an odd place to go about trying to make an improvement, but it’s conceivable to me (even likely) that they HAVE improved. And maybe you’re right; maybe there are a ton of int’l scouts who would be better than Engle if they had Engle’s resources to play with. I just don’t know of any. Maybe they’re out there, but I have no idea who might be better than Engle.

Int’l vs. Domestic – in general, most teams spend quite a bit more money to sign draft picks than to sign int’l prospects. So do the M’s, to my knowledge, though they may spend proportionally more on int’l picks than others. Also, international signings are made earlier, so you’d expect higher attrition.

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 2:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

My take

You ask, I’ll answer.

If you look at the last 5-6 years, the Ms have been top-3 overall, top-5-ish in Latin America. Several teams have broken the bank in 1 or more years who are generally a little more frugal in the Caribbean. We saw that with Washington and the Yankees in 2005, and this year with Cincinnati and San Diego. The Mariners haven’t felt any great need to make huge-dollar “statement signings” in any region, which we should all be pretty pleased with, because a lot of these kids are getting obscene amounts of money that their talent doesn’t justify.

Examining dollar figures really isn’t the best way to judge an international scouting department, though. The game is so screwed up and uneven that the best scouting departments are the ones who are able to get to kids first, not the ones who throw the most money at them. Particularly in Latin America, the “best” scouts are sometimes the ones who give trainers a kick-back in exchange for limiting the access of other teams to scout the kids.

As far as locating/securing talent goes, I’d say the Mariners are almost unmatched in Venezuela, very good in Central/South America, middle of the pack in the DR, solid in Asia, lagging behind in Australia (Barry Holland is great, but he’s had fewer resources in the last 3 years), and light years ahead of the rest of the field in Europe and South Africa.

One potential red flag is that the Brewers are the only team without an academy system in Latin America. Ultimately I’d love to see this model copied everywhere, but when only one team does it, it really hurts their international prospect pipeline relative to the rest of the league. Zdiurencik should probably hold off on bringing that aspect of the Brewers organization over.

by slamcactus on Oct 28, 2008 2:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd agree with that assessment of the M's strengths by region

But note that the DR is where the plurality of the money goes. The M’s have done a hell of a good job scouting Venezuela, because for years Venezuelan bonuses were a fraction of the DR. That’s no longer true, but it does mean that the M’s were #1 in two/three countries around the world and STILL spent less (somebody check that) than, say, the Dodgers or Yankees.
I’d agree that the M’s are top-5ish in Latin America. They’re not #1 though. That’s my point; it’s not that Engle’s been given an order of magnitude more money than anyone else. He ain’t hurting either.

I’m hopeful that Zduriencik is simply going to hand the international scouting to Engle and give them free rein.

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 3:07 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

In some respects, we haven't needed to be #1.

Felix certainly didn’t get anywhere near the highest bonus of his year. Neither did Pineda, nor any number of other prospects. Every year it seems the M’s have someone who comes out of “nowhere” in their DR or Venezuelan program who wasn’t among the big bonuses of the season. Our operation has survived because we try to go deeper than most teams do and have a tendency to spurn those with incredible demands because the difference between them and the lesser known guys a step or two behind (or farther away from the eyes of scouts) wouldn’t really count for a million or two in change.

I’d argue that the Royals are ahead of us in South Africa, but once we start talking about that we’re starting to split hairs, so JH’s analysis is pretty much spot on. I am worried about Zduriencik not valuing Engle even though he’s been a vital tool for us for years, but that’s one of those things that should be sorted out in the coming days/weeks…. wait… hold on…

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/

by JY on Oct 28, 2008 3:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

South Africa...

Their scouting circuit is tied to the European scouting circuit. MLB’s international development team lumps Europe and Africa into one zone, and in that zone the Mariners are the clear #1. The Twins are almost as active as the Ms in Europe, and the Royals are the only team with a paid full-time scout in South Africa, but the Mariners are absolutely everywhere.

by slamcactus on Oct 28, 2008 4:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

True.

The Twins do love their signings out of the Netherlands…

All right, I’ll take that distinction as good.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/

by JY on Oct 28, 2008 4:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Part of this may simply be a semantic issue

I think the M’s have lapped the field in pure geographic coverage, but they certainly don’t need to spend a lot on signings to do that. They need to fund the infrastructure of a global scouting operation, no doubt, but what the A’s spent on Inoa may dwarf what the M’s spend on global scouting, outside of Ven/DR, right? I’m just trying to get a handle on where the M’s rank in total $$s expended on player signings plus staff for int’l scouting… sounds like they may be #1 in baseball for the latter, but it still seems to me that they’re not #1 for the former. Would you say that’s accurate?

This has been a fascinating discussion, and I’ve learned a lot about how the M’s operate in this arena.

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 5:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Dodgers/Yankees...

aren’t the teams that have been outspending the Mariners. The Dodgers were heavy spenders for top talent in the late ’90’s early ’00’s, setting the record for upfront payouts to 16-year-old amateurs 3 different times with Beltre, Willy Aybar, and Joel Guzman. They’ve backed off considerably, though.

The Yankees also are a team that’s spent more recently, but not as much as the Mariners overall in the last 5 years. Given the last 2 offseasons, they’re up there with the Ms in Latin America, but a little bit behind overall.

As far as organizations go, the top-tier of spending teams right now are the Mariners, Yankees, Rangers, Red Sox, and Mets, with the Braves a little bit behind but still in the top tier. Other teams like the Reds, Giants, A’s, and Nationals have made huge splashes with individual high-dollar signings, but these are the teams who sign multiple guys to 6-figure contracts every year. Most others operate in the $30-$90,000 range for all but one or two of their international FA’s.

Unfortunately for these teams, the Rockies’ ground game has them all beat. They’re definitely my nod for the top international scouting organization right now. They spend money, they cast the second-widest net of any organization, and they’ve had really good results to show for it.
-JH

by slamcactus on Oct 28, 2008 4:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not trying to make this an either/or

If I ran an organization, I’d blow everyone else in the league out of the water in both international and domestic scouting budgets. And I’d be thrilled to have Engle running my department – I certainly don’t see him as just another dude with a big budget.

My entire point is that there’s this undercurrent of thought that Engle is the biggest secret weapon ever and he’s the man responsible for every good thing in this organization, while Fontaine is just a fine scouting director who isn’t a problem. That spin is just weird spin from pro-Gillick friendly sources, and doesn’t reflect reality.

by davidcameron on Oct 28, 2008 4:09 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Visibility.

I think that’s what it comes down to.

There are usually about fifteen or so international signings that come in every season from abroad. Of those, a few succeed and have a great rise to the top and everyone feels good. That glosses over the tens of players signed every year that hang around the VSL. Guys like William Ortiz and Kelvin Alarcon don’t exist because most people never hear about them in the first place.

Dealing with a published list of twenty-five to thirty draft signings each season, a number of which don’t last past a season and a half, that skews the perceptions a bit because we look at the draft as something that we know about and have information on.

Engle’s in a fine position. When he’s right, he’s lauded. When he’s wrong, no one notices. Even when he screws up and it’s visible, it doesn’t really create that many waves. I don’t think many people will be wondering what might’ve been if Douglas Salinas achieved his potential, years down the road.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/

by JY on Oct 28, 2008 4:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow...

“My entire point is that there’s this undercurrent of thought that Engle is the biggest secret weapon ever and he’s the man responsible for every good thing in this organization, while Fontaine is just a fine scouting director who isn’t a problem. That spin is just weird spin from pro-Gillick friendly sources, and doesn’t reflect reality.”

Talk about reading into things and assigning motivations.

I don’t know how you’ve come to that conclusion from anything said in these recent conversations here, and if this is truly what you beleive, then I don’t know how more wrong you could be.

Both of the Bobs have been very valuable to the M’s organization. If anything – Zduriencik’s hiring made Fontaine expendable (a point that I wouldn’t necessarily agree with) or at the very least redundant (I might bite a little there). Engle, OTOH, has an entirely different purpose in the organization, and if anything, fills one of Zduriencik’s biggest scouting weaknesses.

How you’ve twisted this discussion to conclude that people who opining this are just producing “…weird spin from pro-Gillick friendly sources…” suggests that you need to step away from the computer for a bit or something…

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Oct 28, 2008 4:31 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not reading into anything

People like Charley Kerfeld have been feeding information with a pro-Gillick spin to anyone who will listen for several years now. Who signed GS52?

At some point, you have to recognize that you’re not talking to objective people about this stuff.

by davidcameron on Oct 28, 2008 4:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Who says I'm talking to Kerfeld?

I know what you’re getting at here, but you know me well enough to trust that my opinion on these matters doesn’t necessarily come from him and similar sources of information.

There are lots of other people that I’m in contact with that aren’t “pro-Gillick” and are most certainly more objective than the “pro-Gillick” folks I know you’re talking about here.

Besides, having your level of loathe for Gillick and everything he did is NOT a prerequisite for having an intelligent, validly-formed opinion. Just because I’m willing to accept that Gillick got a few things right doesn’t mean that I or my opinions are “pro-Gillick” spin.

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Oct 28, 2008 6:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The word count on the last dozen or so comments is like

40 times longer than the average word count on comments for the last year

This is good

Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Washingtonhighways.org

by I'm NOT Corco on Oct 28, 2008 9:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Paul's not an analyst.

(no offense Paul)

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Oct 28, 2008 10:29 AM PDT to parent up   1 recs

None taken.

I never claim to be one.

I’m sharing my reaction. I’m not writing a lengthy analysis on why I think Fontaine sucks (because, really, I don’t). I didn’t like the Morrow pick at the time, and I didn’t like the Clement pick at the time, either. I have two lengthy blog posts over in the Morsels archive that explain this further.

Dave’s right — it’s NOT analysis. It’s reaction. There’s a difference…

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Oct 28, 2008 10:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Clement and Morrow

I was also super pissed that the M’s passed on Andrew Miller. But Morrow was a pretty good pick if the team was going to stay at slot. In hindsight, Morrow has been very good. I don’t like how the m’s have developed him, but he is a great talent and could end up having just as good of a career as Lincecum and Miller. It might not have been the ideal pick, but it was by no means a bad pick.

I don’t see how you can fault the Clement pick at all. There were some other guys picked after him that developed quicker, but if you are looking for instant gratification, you shouldn’t draft a catcher at all. Clement has had some injuries which slowed his development, and he didn’t hit in limited time in Seattle, but lets keep things in perspective.

Clement just hit .335/.455/.676 with a 30/35 K/BB ratio in AAA last year (although it was a smaller sample of 48 games). That is pretty damn good. And although he struggled in his first extended stint with the M’s, he seemed to be coming around in August, hitting .325/.373/.416 before he got shut down with injuries.

Jeff Clement is still a very promising young player. Calling him a draft day mistake is pretty silly.

You can look at past drafts for any team in baseball and find guys that would have been better picks at any given selection. A better way to evaluate drafts is to look at how many quality players come out of each draft. If you look at Fontaine’s drafts on their own terms, he has done pretty well.

by Jerry on Oct 28, 2008 11:31 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm not saying they're mistakes that shouldn't've been drafted at all...

…I’m saying at the time, and with 20-20 hindsight both, they’re not the choices I would’ve made. And even at the time I didn’t SLAM the pick – just saying then and saying again now, that I would’ve preferred someone else.

We can and will argue about draft choices all the time. I’ve been consistent in at least questioning Fontaine’s selections, yet at the same time giving him the benefit of the doubt every time – recognizing that I know next-to-nothing while he knows a hell of a lot more than I do.

I’m not slamming Fontaine. He was one of the most valuable people in the M’s organization top-to-bottom, including any of the players. He’s not perfect, which is all I’m saying, but losing him is HUGE.

I’m not happy he’s gone by any stretch of the imagination.

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Oct 28, 2008 11:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Whatever.

…I’ve said all along with this hiring that assuming Fontaine is retained, then the M’s are going to have one of the best scouting front offices anywhere. And I said this even with my reservations against Fontaine.

That assumption turned out to be a bad one, and I’m actually less favorable towards “Plan Z” now today than I was yesterday.

In my post above, I didn’t SLAM Fontaine — I just pointed out that I wasn’t a fanboy that worships at his altar. There’s a difference. Indeed a part of me IS happy because I wonder how much Fontaine was a part of the Bavasi model. I admit freely that I don’t know everything.

You ask your readers to read and not assume things — I’d ask that you do the same of me.

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Oct 28, 2008 11:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

With all due respect to Dave.. you've listed a number of domestic products who

outside of Morrow in a relief role, and Lowe in a relief role havent proven themselves. Im going to have to see Moore, Raben, Saunders, and a host of others you listed actually accomplish something at the major league level before I can say Fontaine “did a great job”

The Clement pick was bad simply based on the fact that Clement cant catch..

by DarkLou on Oct 28, 2008 2:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Congratulations, you don't know how to evaluate prospects.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Oct 28, 2008 2:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I laughed.

I may be drunk – it’s possible – but that was funny.

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 9:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hooray!

One of the few LL opinions I value

by Robert on Oct 28, 2008 10:03 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

As much as this sucks, I remember Fontaine saying he didn't want the regime to change...

Who knows, maybe he didn’t really want to stay here and it wasn’t so much a firing as a “parting ways”

At least, I hope that’s how it went.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Oct 28, 2008 9:20 AM PDT   0 recs

I doubt Fontaine would have accepted a role as an area scout

or special assistant. The guy has alot of experience running the show, why would he take that kind of demotion?

Secondly, Zoinks has a far superior track record. I have no issue if he wants his people in charge, not Fontaine.

Finally, what is so great about the Fontaine era? Yes, he’s done a solid job. Made some good picks, but it’s not like he’s turned out any superstars.

by DarkLou on Oct 28, 2008 9:29 AM PDT   0 recs

It's not that he was amazing. It's that he simply didn't suck like the rest of the organization.

The fact that he was the first guy out the door is kind of frustrating, I guess.

by Teej on Oct 28, 2008 9:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You said it below, but how COULD he stay?

He’d have to become a scout, and that’s really not fair to Fontaine.
With Blengino and Zoinks, our scouting dep’t has improved. The M’s will be fine. Assuming we keep Engle….

by marc w on Oct 28, 2008 9:46 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, I'm coming around.

I just can’t help but think of Zoinks!, Blengino AND Fontaine! WOO! But that’s probably unrealistic.

by Teej on Oct 28, 2008 9:52 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The more I let this settle in, the more I'm OK with it.

I trust Zduriencik and his guys. And there might not have been another spot to put Fontaine.

by Teej on Oct 28, 2008 9:36 AM PDT   0 recs

Eh.

Best of luck Bob, you were one of the better people in the organization.

That being said, I’m not going to throw a riot over this.

by Matthew on Oct 28, 2008 9:54 AM PDT   0 recs

Maybe it had to be done

But I can’t help but feel that this is an uncomfortable start to the house-cleaning (if it is one). As of right now, Bob Fontaine is gone while Lee Pelekoudas is still on board as Assistant GM.

Fontaine made some positive contributions to this team with his draft picks and now he’s gone because other people made negative contributions that killed the team during his time. Not to mention whomever takes his place will be a marginal upgrade at best.

by ThundaPC on Oct 28, 2008 11:32 AM PDT   0 recs

Obvious troll

is obvious?

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Oct 28, 2008 3:13 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There is a great chance that Fogel was being sarcastic.

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Oct 28, 2008 3:46 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Sarcasm or irony?

/old joke

Fans are typically idiots.

by