Organizational shakeup
As the Times noted today, the organizational shakeup that I mentioned was coming Sunday night is beginning to become public. The “retirement” of Roger Jongewaard and the resignation of Charley Kerfeld continue to bring about the evolution of the Mariners from the Gillick regime to Bavasi’s crew. As I mentioned, Gillick himself is likely the next to officially leave the organization.
We’ve gotten some questions as to what the effects of these resignations will be and what it all means. I’ll try to answer those questions here.
The probably-temporary-retirement of Jongewaard isn’t a big surprise. He took a reduced workload for ’04, moving into more of a consulting role under Bavasi, rather than the day-to-day administrative role he held when Gillick was in charge. Even under Gillick, however, he had less to do with the state of the current farm system than most are giving him credit for. The current prospects in the system were mostly the work of Benny Looper, Frank Mattox, and to a smaller degree, Bob Fontaine and Jim Colborn. Jongewaard has a long history with the club, but he’s also a loyal guy, and he saw the writing on the wall. Bit by bit, the front office that was in place from 2000-2003 is going to be replaced, and Roger figured this was as good a time to go as any.
Kerfeld was a Gillick hire and left of his own accord. While the Mariners success in the independant leagues with Madritsch and Sherrill have made him a mini-celebrity among M’s scouts, the M’s aren’t losing the only guy on the planet capable of scouting the indy leagues, and he’s gotten a bit too much credit for having Mads/Sherrill make the show. The Mariners didn’t outscout everyone to get Madritsch; they outbid them. Eight teams made significant offers after he dominated the Northern League, but the Mariners offered more money than any other team. A $50,000 signing bonus for a player out of the Indy leagues is unheard of, but the price they paid for Madritsch reflected the fact that he was not a hidden gem. Sherrill got a recommendation from Mads, and the organization signed Sherrill more as organizational filler than an actual prospect. Sherrill’s signing looks tremendous now, but no one mentions the hoard of indy league guys the M’s brought into the organization over the past several years. Kerfeld is a good scout, but let’s not ring our hands too much over his loss. It isn’t a crippling defection.
When Gillick offiically leaves (and right now, he’s a big time favorite to get the Washington job, especially if MLB retains control of the club), expect more people to follow him out the door. There are a good number of people loyal to him in the organization, and Bavasi wouldn’t mind filling the front office with his own guys. While we certainly have been vocal critics of Bavasi’s moves since taking over, removing the factions that have existed in the front office the past year are a good thing.
PI, Times on the 2005 M’s
Lot of good stuff over at the PI.
David Andriesen constructs a lineup in what I think is the smartest and most deliberate setup so far. He moves Ichiro to center, which is interesting but (we should face this) unlikely to happen unless he assents, given his astronomical pull. Hire Beltre and Drew, puts Lopez in at short.
John Hickey’s lineup offers a counterpoint where he hires Glaus and Sexson, and plays them at 3B and 1B, respectively. Which… ennnhhhh.
Hickey also offers a good piece on what the M’s are looking for. It includes this heartening quote:
“We’re looking for people who will help us for more than one year,” general manager Bill Bavasi said. “We’re not looking for acquisitions just for the ’05 club. We’re looking for ’05, ’06 and ’07.”
Yay!
So that’s the PI: Thiel’s great column, and some good stuff. The Times offers —
Larry Stone! Woo-hoo! Today, he’s written about possible managerial candidates. He also goes out in pursuit of some of those candidates in a good piece.
Mmm… local coverage goodness on a Wednesday.
Bavasi’s Boys
Melvin speaks out on his firing in a Times piece. Essentially, the reason given to him for his canning was that players leaving the team got better, while players coming on got worse. This is an interesting argument and not one I’d have expected the team to advance. It seems good: that they’re paying attention, but also bad: there’s a lot of small sample size in this, and Safeco as a huge pitcher’s park… I don’t know what to think of this.
Bavasi also recommended Melvin for the Arizona job, which seems weird.
Jon Wells noted in the comments that remaking of the team in Bill’s image continues. This may be good, or bad, depending on your opinion of Bavasi. Not including the mid-season shake-up, the list lately includes:
Roger Jongewaard, listed on the site as “VP Special Asst to the GM” and sort of the institutional talent evaluator
Charlie Kerfeld, scout who signed Madritsch among others
Jim Slaton, the pitching coach for Tacoma who seemed to be able to turn anyone with a pea in their head and a good attitude into something worthwhile. I’m sad to see Slaton go. He did good work for the organization, and I wish him well.
As a larger issue, it’s clear that this is not Gillick’s organization anymore. I expect these are not the only changes we’re going to see, as Bavasi sorts through what he’s seen this first year and starts to perform the Heimlich maneuver on people until they spit up a resignation.
The change away from Mattox was the most important this season: the team has had a serious of disastrous drafts. It would have been hard to have intentionally picked a less productive strategy in the draft than the team pursued without doing something like taking the Baseball America draft projections and reversing them. No, even then…
If Bavasi’s moves so far are any indication, we can expect that he’s going to stock the organization with his people, those he’s worked with and liked in previous jobs, name floaters around the league. Dan Evans is already hanging around collecting alms, so might as well get him an office.
And the more I think about it, the more I think that’s how he’s going to get his manager — it’s going to be someone he’s comfortable with, and probably he knows, or has people he trust recommend to him. Given the likely other priorities of the team (name guy, different disposition) I have no idea who that might be.
Thiel and Lincoln
Art Thiel of the PI has a pretty long interview with Howard Lincoln from yesterday. Thiel asked some pretty tough questions, so let’s give him a good amount of credit. Lincoln avoided most of them, but there are some enlightening answers. Here’s a few snippets, though you really should read the whole thing.
Q: If you were a major shareholder of a company whose main rival for three years running put out better products at half the price, do you think the CEO of that company might be vulnerable?
A: I certainly think that CEO would be subject to legitimate criticism. In any organization, the CEO is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on. I’m cognizant that our fans — and I’m one — are very, very disappointed with what happened in 2004 and, while we had winning records in 2002 and 2003, we didn’t go to the playoffs.
I’d also point out that in the five years I’ve been doing this, we’ve been to the American League Championship Series twice, and we had four years of good baseball. I think overall its fair to say we’ve brought great joy to the community and we’ve turned on an entire region to Mariners baseball.
I would hope that 2004 would be viewed as an aberration (that no one) in the organization felt was acceptable.
Nice jab there by Thiel, even though Lincoln entirely avoids the question about whether the organization has considered that perhaps the A’s have figured out some things that the M’s simply have not.
Q: There is no consensus among them to change the club’s approach?
A: The most important thing we can do is maintain a very high major league player payroll, at least in the top 10. If we can do that, that’s the most significant contribution the ownership group can make to the Mariners.
That’s precisely what we intend to do in 2005, even though in doing so we will budget for a loss. We are prepared to accept that loss in order to provide maximum financial flexibility to (general manager) Bill Bavasi and the baseball people, to give them the full opportunity to get things done right.
Thiel continues to fire upon the organizational philosophy, and Lincoln continues to doge the question. You have to love that Lincoln believes he can actually get us to believe the M’s are going to operate at a loss in 2005, don’t you? The payroll would have to be in the $130 million range for the M’s to actually lose money next year.
Q: Turning to the Bob Melvin firing, Bavasi was reluctant to share with media and fans the reasons. Even though he said it was a private, confidential conversation, the reluctance to explain came off to me and others as arrogant. Along with several other decisions, the organization has come off as arrogant or dismissive of fans’ concerns.
A: Quite frankly, I’m shocked that anyone would think we were arrogant. Confidential communications are important to the Mariners. We treat our manager, or any other employee, with dignity and respect. The point that Bill was making is that there are things NOT to be shared with anyone on the outside, fans or anyone else.
I’m with Lincoln here. I don’t understand people who think it was arrogant of Bavasi to not tell the media why he fired Bob Melvin. There is no moral obligation for him to deride Melvin publically. To claim that it was arrogant is just odd. Make no mistake, the Mariners front office contains some of the most arrogant people in the game, but this is not an example of that.
Q: How does the ownership agree to take on a loss?
A: We meet monthly. The budget for the new year (starting Nov. 1) has not been finalized. I have already advised our group that we are going to have a significant loss to accomplish the objective. I anticipate the budget will be approved.
Just so we’re clear, the organization is absolutely not going to operate at a loss next year. They will make a smaller profit, and they’ll use nifty accounting tricks to say that they’re losing money, but the team will be profitable next year, just like every other year.
Good interview, though.
No predictions here
I’m not posting any playoff series predictions because I’m horrible at predicting playoff series. I mean, seriously, every year you’d do really well to pick exactly the opposite of what I picked. So I’m not touching these things with a ten foot pole. Instead, I’ll just sit back and watch good baseball the rest of the way.
That said, I don’t mind telling you who I’m rooting for. A hearty “way to go!” to the Twins for knocking off the Yankees tonight. I was happy to see the Red Sox top Anaheim today as well. I’ll definitely be pulling for Houston over Atlanta. In the other NL series, Cards-Dodgers, I could go either way (but I think Dave’s right, that St. Louis is just too freaking good).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled managerial debate… unless Derek decides to chime in with his thoughts on the post-season.
Playoff Predictions
While we discuss managerial tendancies and upcoming free agents, other teams are preparing for the greatest three weeks of the season. The playoffs may not be the best way to determine the best team or to reward a season of excellence, but there are few things in sports as exciting as October baseball, and this should be a fun year to simply enjoy the games. Here’s my gut feel on how the playoffs will shake out.
ALDS, Minnesota vs New York
Johan Santana is tremendous and Brad Radke is pitching better than anyone on the Yankees, but this still looks like a big mismatch to me. The Twins are in the playoffs because they play in the saddest division in baseball, not because they are one of the four best teams in the American League. The Yankee offense is still fearsome, and a rotation of Mussina-Hernandez-Brown-Vazquez, for all its struggles, is still ridiculously talented. Yankees in 4.
ALDS, Anaheim vs Boston
An interesting pairing that should make for a fun series. The Angels bullpen is trying to carry a poor rotation, while the Red Sox starters are trying to carry the rest of the roster. A contrast in styles, with neither team having a clear advantage, and a series that could go either way. I’ll take Boston in 5, but with little conviction.
NLDS, Los Angeles and St. Louis
The Cardinals are the best team in baseball. The middle of their line-up is unprecedentedly awesome. Their rotation, despite not being full of all-stars, is very good. They play great defense. There aren’t many things that you can point to as flaws. Meanwhile, the Dodgers have a shaky rotation, a questionable offense, and are dealing with a lot of question marks. Cardinals in 3.
NLDS, Atlanta vs Houston
The most surprising team in baseball against a team that was left for dead six weeks ago. Phil Garner versus Bobby Cox in a match of bunting madness. This is probably the least interesting of the four series’ to me, but also the one that I feel like I’m just totally guessing on. Atlanta in 5, but I wouldn’t even shrug if the Astros swept all three games by 10 runs.
ALCS, Boston vs New York
Prepare yourself for 842 shots a day of Aaron Boone. Expect to hear the words “Pedro Martinez” and “Daddy” in the same sentence every fifteen minutes. Gear up for an 8,000 word column from Bill Simmons and an assasination attempt on Terry Francona. Despite all the annoying hype that goes along with a Red Sox-Yankees playoff series, it’s also great baseball. Red Sox in 6, sealing the fact that Pedro will be wearing pinstripes next spring.
NLCS, Atlanta vs St. Louis
Remember all those things I said about the Cardinals? They still apply. Cardinals in 5.
World Series, Boston vs St. Louis
The series where Albert Pujols officially becomes the new face of baseball. People know he’s good in a reverant, those-are-some-gaudy-numbers kind of way. But he’s never had the chance to shine on the big stage, showing people that he’s legitimately one of the best hitters they’ll ever see. It isn’t the curse of the Bambino or the hated Yankees that will doom the Crimson Hose; it’s the sticks in the St. Louis order. Cardinals in 6.
Dierker and the clubhouse, a brief digression
Dierker’s a guy who shows up in the candidate speculation post, and is my favorite managerial candidate. Maybe not for this team, for reasons I may get into later. The knock on him, in a nutshell, is that his team quit on him and he had to get fired. This is going to illustrate something important that’s too-often forgotten in the discussion of managers… but we’ll get to that.
If you followed those Astros, it’s a little more complicated than just “they quit”. Dierker did well for a while managing his team, because he understood that Biggio and Bagwell were hard workers and didn’t need him to stomp on them over a botched DP. He had a soft touch, I think, which gets managers lauded when it works (“He wasn’t the kind of guy who would bawl you out in front of people, he’d take you aside later and say ‘You see what happened there? Here’s how you handle this next time.'” versus “He’s a fiery competitor who lets you know what’s on your mind.”)
What backfired, was that the team soured badly and almost immediately in his last season. They brought in some players (Meluskey’s been singled out particularly) who didn’t get along with anyone else, there were fights, and the Bs turned on Dierker. A long discontent with his strategic decisions, because Dierker often didn’t play by the book, leaked into the press and guys like Brad Ausmus jumped in with the Bs to slag Dierker.
Now, the crux of their complaints, in my mind, was entirely baseless, but illustrates something important. Like this: Dierker didn’t like walking the #8 guy to get to the pitcher. He’d given this traditional strategy a lot of thought and figured out you were better off taking your chances (and most likely an out) from the #8 guy.
Ausmus hated, hated, hated this strategy. It worked almost all of the time, but the one time in twenty it didn’t, Ausmus would glare at Dierker, bitch at him, carp at the press. Eventually this kind of thing led to Dierker losing the respect of his players and his job.
Which is to say — some thing aren’t worth the fight. Lineups are like that. I’ll argue until I’m blue in the face that lineup construction is something where a manager can eek out a couple runs a season, force interesting matchups, and tinker to their heart’s delight. But if that tinkering’s perceived as weakness, for instance, the team and the media seize on it. Rob Neyer argues persausively that it’s not worth it. Whatever runs you get aren’t worth the trouble, and you’re better off expedning that energy elsewhere.
I think walking guys is a case where it is. A couple times a game, it’s a significant advantage.
This was one symptom. The others were similar: that he didn’t make enough moves, call enough weird plays — which, if you think those plays are of limited value, makes sense.
Dierker was unable to convince his players that these were the right moves. His players are not without fault in this, either. Dierker expressed a desire to have nine captains on the field — a lineup every day that thought through each play, knew what to do, and what might go wrong. In that, I think he did well — his teams were prepared, played hard, and didn’t make the kind of crazy gaffes you saw in, say, Art Howe’s Athletics teams.
What may have happened is that in so doing, in trying to create nine captains, Dierker created nine managers who disagreed with him.
There’s more than enough blame to go around, but I’d suggest that Dierker’s style there worked well to a point in accomodating the veterans but was doomed to failure. Ausmus and Bagwell want a Melvin, say, not a guy who reads baseball research and comes up with a new way to do something.
Many managers fail until they find the right team, when suddenly they go from being dolts to being geniuses. Joe Torre is the best model of this today, and the list is long and distinguished.
Dierker seems like an ideal manager for a team like the A’s, who are willing to do crazy stuff to win games, try to draft and create smart players, but who still need better preparation on the field. Their players have already seen managers make extremely few moves, they’re culturally ready for a more cerebral guy, and they don’t have the kind of elephant-in-the-room veteran presences those Astros teams have.
Site lateness issues
You may have seen that the USSM is at times slow to respond to specific requests this week, so if you ask for article x, it may not serve that article up to you. We’re getting hammered, which is good, but also… bad. So bear with us.
Managers
Derek’s breakdown of the candidates is quite thorough and well done, and I believe the commenters mentioned every person with a pulse who has ever been involved in baseball. Reading through all the suggestions, though, I noticed one common theme;
As a fanbase, we don’t have any idea what we want as a manager. We know what we don’t want, but ask for specific strengths, and the answers are all over the board. Complicating matters even more, the few things that we would like in our new skipper, we have no idea how to evaluate ahead of time. The analysis supporting most suggestions hinges on a winning record with the last team that fired him. However, we’re ignoring the fact that the guy we just fired had a winning record last year, and we all clearly agree that it wasn’t an indication of good managerial qualities.
Rather than supporting Cito Gaston because he won a few world series (even Bob Brenly won one…), Larry Dierker because he’s a good writer (whose players hate him), or Dan Rohn because we liked what he did with Tacoma, I’d like to see people explain how their candidate will help the Mariners. Be specific. What traits does your candidate possess that is actually going to improve the team, and how do you know he has those traits?
Evaluating managers is mostly beyond our grasp right now. I’m of the opinion that we’re basically just guessing, and we really have little idea who would or wouldn’t make a good hire. Personally, I’m just rooting against Larry Bowa and Jimy Williams and am ambivolent on just about everyone else. Sometimes, it’s okay to plead ignorance. When it comes to figuring out which managers are going to be successful at the major league level, even the teams haven’t figured it out, and they have exponentially more information than we do. Barring an obvious debacle (like Bowa), I’m just giving Bavasi the benefit of the doubt on this one, and let’s all hope it works out.
Ichiro
Wacky Ichiro stat of the day — his crazy, reverse platoon split. This isn’t anything new, but still worth pointing out. Whereas normally you’d expect a left-handed hitter to hit better against right-handed pitching, Ichiro is the opposite….
vs. RHP: .359/.402/.423 (very, very good)
vs. LHP: .404/.444/.529 (ridiculous)