Poll: How offensive was Chuck Armstrong's decision to keep Washburn?

by Steve Nelson on Sep 7, 2008 1:32 PM PDT

We've commented ad nauseum about Chuck Armstrong's decision to kill the deal to trade Washburn to the Twins. That FanPost generated more comments than any other that I've done.

But I think it's time to get more quantitative about our feelings. Yes, the decision was offensive, but how offensive was it? Midlly offensive or gut-sickening bad??

And what better way to get quantified than by getting polled. So here it is, a Lookout Landing poll for gauging our revulsion.

Poll

Which of these is least offensive?

Overflowing seasickness slop bucket.

30 votes

Wastebasket filled with used tampons and sanitary napkins collected from a hospital gonorrhea and syphilis treatment ward.

28 votes

5-gallon pail filled with liquid that oozes out of the bottoms of garbage cans.

37 votes

The stuff dragged back up the sewer pipe after RotoRooter finishes clearing your house lateral.

17 votes

Chuck Armstrong's decision to kill the deal to trade Washburn to the Twins.

23 votes

135 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

IMO it was offensive, but marginally speaking, no more offensive than his usual obstructive stupidity

I do believe the reaction to the Washburn non-deal was overblown.

by Gomez on Sep 7, 2008 3:10 PM PDT 0 recs

I agree

The move should’ve been made but the fact that it wasn’t is par for the course for this organization.

by ThundaPC on Sep 7, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

I basically had to tune out the blog community because the outrage was getting to be too much. Of course he should have been dumped for nothing, but that opportunity still exists in this off season and there are much bigger things to worry about. I know that the salary dump will help; I’m just saying it’ll help only so much.

If they could somehow find a way to unload the next three years of Joh or Silva (yeah right), I would think this org’s future might be a little brighter. This next year of Wash and Batista basically mean nothing— yes, that is $16M that could be spent elsewhere, but we’re unlikely to spend it anyways. I’m more upset about the four roster spots of the aforementioned.

by batura on Sep 7, 2008 5:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

That opportunity does not exist this off-season.

Once the season’s over there will be other pitchers available who cost less and suck less. We had one shot at this because of the paucity of starters available in August and the Twins took a crazy risk.

This was an appalling failure simply because of what a complete no-brainer it was. We have a below average starter making a ton of dough, and someone offered to let us have that not be the case. Armstrong’s decision is easily the second worst decision the team has made this season.

The worst, of course, is Kenji’s extension. I rank the Bedard trade below both of these because I can at least see what Bavasi was trying to do. I disagree with his execution, but it wasn’t a laughable plan on its face.

Keeping Washburn was.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Sep 7, 2008 10:02 PM PDT up 0 recs

Wrong.

Bedard trade put seriously detrimental to the team’s future and the Washburn one was just stupid. The rest is emotions.

by batura on Sep 7, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up 0 recs

My Ranking:

1. Bedard Trade – Cheap good CF, good cheap pitching prospects, good cheap SU/CL for 2 years of good pitcher
2. Silva Signing – $48M Cha Seung Baek
3. Johjima Extension – Falling off the face of the earth was unforseeable, but org has too much depth at C
4. Holding back RRS and Morrow – leads doing stupid things like (1) and (2)
5. Not dumping Washburn for a bag of beans

The saddest part about 1 and 2 is that they’re going to end up paying roughly $100M for those two pitchers- the $48M and ~$16M to the pitchers, and potentially $30M to replace all the pieces they gave up that were cheaply under club control

by batura on Sep 7, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

The thought process behind the Washburn non-trade is the most abhorrent thing about it, though.

It’s indicative of everything that’s wrong with the franchise; inability to evaluate pitching talent, inability to read the market and predict the ways in which it’s likely to change going forward, over-valuation of veterans, way too much stock put into the assumed reaction of casual fans, etc.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Sep 8, 2008 12:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah, I was jaded enough to not be surprised.

Just like when I tried to shrug off the Silva signing. That one to me is the hardest to deal with— $48M for an average pitcher when we were fully staffed in the average pitcher prospect department.

by batura on Sep 8, 2008 12:59 AM PDT up 0 recs

No disagreement there.

The Silva signing might be the worst move (based on intent and thought process) this franchise has ever made.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Sep 8, 2008 1:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

THIEEEEFFF!!!!

It definitely ranks right up there.

This signature space for rent.

by PositivePaul on Sep 8, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

Their philosophy is a known quantity

It was offensive but it wasn’t a shock, nor was it the worst decision they’ve ever made.

by Gomez on Sep 8, 2008 8:37 AM PDT up 0 recs

I forgot about Silva.

Silva’s worse.

And again, the Bedard trade I think is defensible. They went out and got something valuable, and they overpaid horribly for it. With Washburn and Silva there’s no value coming to the M’s. You can’t get these wrong if you know the first thing about baseball.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Sep 8, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

And I trust you realize the poll options were grossly overdrawn ...

for sophomoric humor purposes.

by Steve Nelson on Sep 7, 2008 9:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

I know my opinion might not be the most informed but...

Look, you have a very rich owner who doesn’t give a shit about the money on Washburns contract. So trading him for nothing just to spare the expense of his contract is pointless. In the analogy about the apartments, its as if the owner is a multi billionare and doesn’t care in the slightest about the 20,000.
If the twins were going to give up decent prospects in return, then I getting angry would make sense, but since (From what ive gathered) the deal was basically just getting rid of Washburn in exchange for his plane ticket to Minnesota, there is no reason to get upset at all.

Exceeding expectations is less a matter of luck than possession of certain assets.

by anaheim angels on Sep 7, 2008 6:26 PM PDT 0 recs

More money, rotation slot

by Jeff on Sep 7, 2008 6:33 PM PDT up 0 recs

More money that should go to Felix.

by Wilder. on Sep 7, 2008 7:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

More money? He doesn't care about the money!

A rotation spot would be a compelling argument, but who would competently fill the spot without hindering their development?

Exceeding expectations is less a matter of luck than possession of certain assets.

by anaheim angels on Sep 7, 2008 7:24 PM PDT up 0 recs

There is obviously a limit to how much they're willing to spend each year

The money that goes to Washburn is part of that total sum, and that money could go to something more useful.

by Fogel on Sep 7, 2008 7:28 PM PDT up 0 recs

Like Stephen Strasburg's record signing bonus?

talent by a mile, may even be in the bigs in ’09 + Scott Boras == big dough

I see the future. I see cake.

by Blicks on Sep 8, 2008 1:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

oops

that should say “number 1 talent”, no clue what happened to the pound sign.

I see the future. I see cake.

by Blicks on Sep 8, 2008 1:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

I'd be surprised if he got more than $6M or so

by Graham on Sep 8, 2008 8:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yes this is why the Mariner payroll is actually infinity billion dollars per year

by Graham on Sep 8, 2008 12:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

That's not a real number

by Robert on Sep 8, 2008 11:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well

Given the team is going to cut payroll and rebuild, the money at this point actually does matter… but that’s hindsight being 20/20: we didn’t know they planned to rebuild at the time, and they probably didn’t know either.

I think a lot of people just want the expensive, whiny mediocrity gone above all else… and when there was an easy chance to offload him for any sort of return, it riled a lot of people up that the deal ultimately wasn’t done.

by Gomez on Sep 7, 2008 8:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

"...they probably didn't know either." That's a big problem.

Nothing I’ve seen, or heard from the FO would make me question this part of your statement. But it’s not the point of this post so I won’t belabor the issue.

"Steee-rike!" cries the umpire, and the westward course of empire flows unchecked. Paul O'Neil in SI.

by dpseadv on Sep 7, 2008 8:51 PM PDT up 0 recs