Shannon Drayer does better: Inside the Mariner Front Office
Shannon Drayer has an excellent article in which she gathers information from former front office employees (none identified nor quoted) as it relates to just how much "meddling" Chuck Armstrong and Howard Lincoln have done.
In short, less than what the general Mariner fan wants to believe. Perhaps even significantly so. The article also includes a few tidbits on the Bill Bavasi and Pat Gillick regimes.
over 1 year ago
ThundaPC
57 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This is worth reading.
She’s good at her job.
by Kermit. on Sep 16, 2010 6:51 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Hmm,
From the article:
What role did Armstrong play in player acquisitions? One former front office member told me what Armstrong did was ask questions. When he was presented with a move he would ask questions that would force those proposing the deal to look at all angles. He challenged them. “The former lawyer in him came out in those situations but it was good,” he told me. “It worked. It wasn’t that he didn’t want us to make a deal but he wanted us to be armed with every bit of information. Who saw him? What do they mean by their evaluations? How have they done with their past evaluations? Have enough eyes seen him? He was a very good sounding board.”
and in a different article by Geoff Baker:
Armstrong said he’d noticed the suspension in Lueke’s bio information hours before the deal.
“I asked Jack, ‘Have you checked this out?’ " Armstrong said. "And he said, ‘Yes, I talked to Jon Daniels and he told me that this was an incident in a bar in Bakersfield … ’ And Jack said he [Daniels] told him that Lueke had been acquitted, or exonerated. And I said, ’So, it’s over? No big deal?’ He said, ‘No big deal.’ "
Does that pass the pass the smell test? When told Lueke had been acquitted or exonerated, the former lawyer didn’t have any questions as to which one it was or wanted to know more about the specifics of the case?
That IS interesting.
Since it came from Armstrong himself.
On the other hand, it may be that this would have been caught and discussed earlier if Armstrong had inserted himself. I can very easily see how Zduriencik could honestly think it was not a big deal and Armstrong would.
Looking at it another way,
The acquitted or exonerated part may simply be him not remembering as to which one he was told it was. Anyway, what happened to the guy who used to play devil’s advocate? The article does say that Armstrong had taken a step back while Jack would consult with his own people, but he did check in on Lueke.
I took it to mean that this applied mainly to the Gillick and early Bavasi eras.
Armstrong pretty much trusted Zduriencik to run the organization in any way he saw fit. It’s pretty clear that Armstrong believed that Zduriencik’s team did the legwork on Lueke’s background and figured that Z had things well in hand.
Yeah not really
the whole idea that it may have flown under the radar is absurd. Lueke missed nearly an entire season and there is no way, no way that even the most cursory look at his history does not yield a red flag. You see a guy who missed that much time, you wonder why. And you figure out pretty quickly what was going on. I’m not putting it on Armstrong exactly, although I dont buy that he was unaware of it all. But certainly Jack and his crew must have known all about it and I don’t believe for one minute that they didn’t google him or some bullshit like that.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 16, 2010 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Reading over those quotes again... I think even Armstrong cannot have been completely honest in the quote he gave Baker
I just can’t believe that he would see a player who pitched only seven innings the season prior and not delve into the why when all it takes is six key strokes on his smartphone while he’s on the shitter. Ditto Zduriencik. Either Daniels put up an extraordinary smokescreen or they’re both being dishonest with the press.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 16, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
It's possible he was so uninvolved prior to this incident he blindly trusted what the people below him were saying
Based on what we know about him it makes more sense that Armstrong would’ve objected to it had he known the full extent.
Eh whatever.
My point is that its not the kind of thing anyone glosses over and I would be shocked if either of them were truly ignorant of the facts until it was too late. Just goes to show how little good information is out there about what happens in our FO.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 16, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah. I don't buy being ignorant.
Someone’s spinning for all their worth. Or being forced to spin.
I just don't understand why.
Acknowledge his past, tell everyone that “he’s a good kid who made a really dumb mistake” and move on. The more they try to spin it, the more it becomes an issue.
"I’m taking two beers and popping the slide"
Me neither.
Make the statement. Wait until winter, then fire Fusco. Less easy to tie the firing to Lueke and it looks more considered and rational.
As it is, it looks rushed and panicked, and upper management has chalk dust over its hands from the line they drew from Fusco to Lueke.
We, as Mariner fans, are so lucky to have the writers we do.
by katal on Sep 16, 2010 10:32 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
And Chuck did nix the Washburn trade
From Baker’s story. ..
It was Armstrong who nixed a proposed trade of Jarrod Washburn to the Minnesota Twins because he didn’t feel Seattle was getting enough back in terms of talent that could help the club.
“I did not want to just move him to save the money,” he said.
by Ryan Divish on Sep 16, 2010 12:27 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
I'll trade....
…being observant over blockquoting properly.
The whole organization has been in Cover Your Ass mode since June.
I find it difficult to believe many things that come out of it.
by Ryan Divish on Sep 16, 2010 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 10 recs
Look, I like Shannon and I think she is a tireless worker, who knows the game.
But the problem with the ownership isn’t the concept of meddling. It’s the result. They aren’t winning. It’s not minor decisions like nixing the Washburn trade that are at issue. It’s the larger view. Do they have a plan in place for baseball – not financial – success.
If they do, we have yet to see it. Certainly giving Bavasi and open check book to “win now” as Shannon claims is a decision lacking major foresight.
by Ryan Divish on Sep 16, 2010 12:55 PM PDT reply actions 7 recs
I see where you're coming from and I agree with this as well.
If ownership ends up firing Jack Zduriencik next, I would really have to wonder what their long term plan is if they even have one. If the current debacle is enough for them to consider “changing directions” I would have to ask the questions “What do they want?” and “How do they plan on getting there?”
The organization’s PR-machine hyping up the 2008 and 2010 teams certainly didn’t help matters. It comes off as the organization wanting to win as soon as seemingly possible. Will ownership be patient enough to wait until the front office develops a team with a core strong enough for people can feel confident in?
I usually don't read Art Thiel,
but his article from yesterday has a couple of excellent points regarding senior management’s lack of accountability for the team. I’m not block quote expert, so here are some copy/pastes.
Regarding Lincoln: “But he doesn’t seem to understand that with all the things that have gone haywire this season and in seasons past, and with no one in senior franchise leadership stepping up to accept responsibility, some employees, and most fans, are not reassured when told to simply ignore criticism”
“What might be useful instead is for ownership to examine the profound nature of this failure of a season and figure out whether the franchise’s fundamental problems can be worked around: Absentee ownership, a priority of “ballpark experience” over championships, an overwrought need for message control and an absence of public accountability."
Thiel's column was fantastic
Plus I love how offended Howard got by being compared to Capt. Queeg. But not about being considered Nixonian.
History's ok
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 16, 2010 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
No matter what they have done, the bottom line is the organization is struggling
And has been struggling for most of the past decade. And the blame should start at the very top, not at the lower levels.
by Ryan Divish on Sep 16, 2010 12:58 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs
In my office, if a project or two turns into a mess, it's on us.
After many projects turning into disasters, it comes down on my boss. I would assume the same would apply to baseball.
So fresh and so green.
I fucking hate you Mariners
Very much so.
I’m listening to one of our web producers explain how Twitter works to our sports on-line editor… I wish I was making this up.
Ladies and Gentlemen, your Tacoma News Tribune.
by Ryan Divish on Sep 16, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hopefully neither your web producer nor your sports on-line editor are familiar with search queries
by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 16, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I cannot believe you are still a newspaper
by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 16, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
If I wanted to be censored and forced to write five meaningless stories a day
I’d apply for Street’s job that’s going to be open in the offseason.
by Ryan Divish on Sep 16, 2010 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
But the Mariners aren't playing!
What could possibly be boring about not the Mariners?
Wow, you're really tRyan there.
Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.
There are like four people who should be allowed to pun
by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 16, 2010 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I honestly wondered if I would get boxed for the horribleness of it.
Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.
I hate that it took me probably two days to figure that one out.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
by JY on Sep 16, 2010 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope that one of them is me.
Morgan Ensberg for Manager 2011!
AL Scout on Rendon: "I would peg him as a poor man's Jose Lopez."
A good article by Drayer, as usual.
But there are a few sentences in there that stick out to me.
A change occurred under Bavasi. While he worked well with everyone, including Armstrong, he was presented with the challenge of trying to reload. Ownership dictated that they would not tolerate a rebuild. They did ante up however, allowing the largest budgets in club history. The emphasis was win now and give up the prospects if you think that will help.
That doesn’t jive with the complaints that the M’s aren’t willing to spend money but it seems like a huge influence in roster contruction.
Honestly...
I think that explains the lack of success. If you can’t tolerate a little rebuilding, you can’t build a young core ofnhome grown talent that is the key for almost all World Series winners for the past cowpoke decades. Far from knowing how to win, this seems like a formula to NOT win.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
