Mariner payroll commitments, 2008-2012
DMZ · December 21, 2007 at 10:43 am · Filed Under Mariners
Drawn from CoT. Does include Vidro’s almost-certain-to-vest 2009 option he got in the trade from the Nationals. Does not (not) include mutual options, speculation about players headed into arb, and so forth.
Comments
71 Responses to “Mariner payroll commitments, 2008-2012”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
USSM uses and recommends
Well, if anyone thought the MAriners management actually knew how to spend money wisely, this would give me some hope. The problem is, those useless guys coming off the books will be replaced by more useless guys added to it.
On the flip side…maybe they’ve set up some flexibility for their replacements in management.
Wow, I’ve always been a fan of Adrian Beltre but seeing this makes me realize he might be one of the better free agent signings of the last few years.
What made me optimistic about this team’s future was Washburn and Batista coming off the books with a chance to really turn the roster around. Silva negates that quite a bit.
BTW… When is Felix due his big payday?
Next year, if you mean arbitration. After 2011, if you mean free agency.
“G” commented over at Lookout Landing yesterday that Silva’s contract is more than it cost to build the Kingdome. In that honor, and with his impending implosion, shall we nick-name him “Kingdome”?
Am I missing something, or is Bloomquist not on the graph?
Am I missing something, or is Bloomquist not on the graph?
After all, he still only makes like a million a year. It’s too much, but in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t hinder the team like some players. *cough*Sexson*cough*.
ooooooh. pretty.
I can’t really tell from the graph — you’re factoring in the $2.5M the Nationals are paying on Vidro’s $8.5M contract in ‘08?
Bloomquist only gets $1m and only for next yer — like Lopez, he barely shows up at the top.
The side payment’s not in there - I just imported the payroll and ran it.
Wow, that’s a big chunk of payroll being taken up by Silva in 2011 (and 2008, 2009, and 2010).
you know you’re in a good spot when Sexson and Silva are your 2nd and 4th highest paid players.
There is some room to work with in 2009, and even more in 2010. Basically, I am praying against the M’s somehow fluking their way to the playoffs, so we can ditch Bavasi before he hoses us any further.
If we can get a non boob evaluating talent in the FO, the payroll commitment remains in place, and Bavasi doesn’t make anymore moronic trades this year, we could be in good shape moving forward.
I wonder if this chart should include Raul’s lifetime contract with the team…and Griffey’s contract in 2010 when he is acquired as the team’s new Left-Handed Sock.
Now THOSE points of data make a beautiful line…
Will someone tell Bavasi to just get to work on extending Beltre’s contract for a few more years? That should minimize his ability to do any more damage this offseason……
Is there any possibility of the M’s flipping Wladimir Balentien for a prospect with a similar skill-set and chances, but whose left handed bat would fit Safeco field better? Maybe from a team that needs more right-handed hitters.
There is some room to work with in 2009, and even more in 2010. Basically, I am praying against the M’s somehow fluking their way to the playoffs, so we can ditch Bavasi before he hoses us any further.
Imagine how much we would have had before Carlos Silva! Just over 65 million next year!
I’d be really curious to see the same graph for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, given their new deals to Torri Hunter and Gary Matthews, Jr.
That’s a lot of pink in 2010. As we struggle to finish above third again that year, I wonder what Putz’ future will hold…if he’ll be worth a big extension or if we can slang him to a playoff team for a couple good pieces. Whichever path is more appropriate at the time, I’m sure we’ll find a way to do the opposite.
#5, I’m going to call him 7/11 because in Spanish Silva means Strophe which is interpreted as a stanza consisting of 7 and 11 syllables. It is also the likely amount of runs and hits he will give up in many outings.
Carlos Fucking Silva. Is this deja vu all over again or what?
I love Putz, but I think closers tend to be overvalued. I know the M’s still pay lip service to the idea of Morrow becoming a starter, but at this point I think I’d groom him for the closer role (maybe Putz can help him work on a splitter) and then flip Putz either at the trade deadline in ‘09 or the following offseason (assuming Morrow is healthy and looks like he can assume the role). Lather, rinse, repeat.
And if Morrow doesn’t work out, I’m sure they could find someone else. In any case, assuming Putz hangs onto his stuff, $8.6M for an elite closer will look like a bargain in ‘10 (which is why you could flip him for some real value) so it won’t be the end of the world if he sticks around. But I’d love to see the M’s establish a kind of “Closer U” as Guadardo’s splitter gets passed down from one to the next and the M’s keep buying fixer-uppers cheap and selling them high.
joser,
That’s exactly why Putz was the first thing I honed onto on the graph…the question of how we pursue closers in the future is a huge one, and we don’t really know if JJ will fall apart, last forever, or be somewhere in between as he ages. Will he be more Lee Smith or more Troy Percival?
I agree with you and would love to see us always have a sort of order of succession in place, a process of grooming certain types of arms into potentially filling the closer role when we decide not to overpay for a guy who has probably just peaked. Or if you want to hang onto your guy and think he’s one of the 1 or so out of 100 that is worth the big contract, then you sell real high on one or two of those young guns waiting under him in order to restock your farm arms or get some worthy field pieces. A bullpen with more than one guy who could be the ace closer is usually a good bullpen, I’d wager, and one with more than two can probably stand to trade one for a more pressing need. And the M’s as buyers in a closer market is a frightening thought, is it not? Why do I have so little confidence they can shrewdly manage even one specialty role?
Dear Mr. Bavasi,
Please do not sign any more deals that make my Red Sox fan buddy send me emails mocking our retarded front office. I told him that Dice-K was overpaid and now I have to answer for Silva. You are bad at your job and should look for work elsewhere.
Thanks
Your Fan, Shortbus
World Series bound in 2015!
Andy MacPhail is now trying the “oh, maybe we won’t trade him” route.
While the last thing this site needs is another post with the name ‘Bavasi’ in it, allow me to address this subject from a different direction: consider how much worse off we’d be if for some reason free agents just accepted the Mariners’ money. When you start adding names like Pavano, Schmidt, Zito (and maybe Kuroda?) to this chart, the scenario seems like it would quickly move from clueless to hopeless. But this does raise a larger issue: what is it about the organization that makes players turn down their money? Is it geographical remoteness? Perceived inability to compete? Lack of pure salesmanship? And more importantly, is there something that will prevent current players (except Ichiro) from signing extensions?
I have mixed emotion about the above referenced article. A. I think MacPhail is playing a poker with Bedard and wants to try to scare other teams into bidding higher for bedard. B. Him keeping Bedard means we keep jones, morrow, etal. and i for one am pretty excited about watching jones roam the outfield and basepaths as he did here in T-town. C. However, Bedard is scary good and would be great to start having “Happy Bedard Days.” The mix finally settles on B as there is something about rooting for a guy who grew up with you.
Along those lines, Dave, are you planning on doing an analysis of Bedard like you did with Santana. If so, I recommend the ERA as a good starting point.
I like the idea of tradin Putz at some point — IF (tht’s a big “if”) they can get full value (whatever that is). I guess I’d like to see a budding starter come back for him, but it depends on when such a trade is made.
Meanwhile, I am counting the days until Richie Sexson is no longer a Mariner. It can’t be more than about 313 right now…
I think that the club has a $1M buy out option on the Putz 2010 $8.6M contract. This greatly reduces the risks pointed out in previous comments.
26 (Shortbus)-
I think you can insert any team in there to replace the Red Sox at this point. My Giants and Cubs buddies both sent me texts mocking the Silva signing before I had even got home to read it. It doesn’t make any sense to me, and I will really love to sit down and talk with Bavasi to see what his logic is.
Well, at least one commentator thinks this puts the Mariners rotation ahead of the Yankees and Detroit… but still behind the Angels, Red Sox, Indians, Rays, Jays, and Twins. No, I don’t think his “evaluation” technique amounts to much. And I’m not sure I see the Angels as the best in the AL. But it’s notable that the Rays’ pitching stockpile is finally starting to get noticed by the broader media (it was probably too much to hope that they could remain a source of undervalued talent, assuming Bavasi was astute enough to recognize that).
and I will really love to sit down and talk with Bavasi to see what his logic is.
It’s pretty simple really. He doesn’t understand the concept of replacement level or what that means for starting pitchers. He doesn’t understand pitcher projections and that ERA is a poor predictor of future pitching success. And he believes you have to pay “market rate” to get players even if the market doesn’t correspond to value.
So in Silva he sees a pitcher with ERAs of 4.21, 3.44, 5.94, 4.19, think 2006 was a fluke and figures he’s getting a guy who’s certain to pitch 190-200 innings with an ERA close to 4.00 for the next four seasons and that’s worth $11M per year.
that Jim Street. he’s such a cockeyed optimist.
feh.
He doesn’t understand the concept of replacement level or what that means for starting pitchers.
He reminds me of Casey Stengel, after drafting an obscure catcher in the early rounds of the Mets’ expansion draft:
“You have to have a catcher because if you don’t you’re likely to have a lot of passed balls.”
Similarly, the Mariners had to pay all that money for Silva, because if you don’t have a pitcher, you forfeit the game.
GMs should focus more on ‘median’ team salaries so that you build a balanced team with greater overall potential, rather than role the dice on a few “superstars” out performing the holes in your line up created cost cutting on the ‘rank and file’.
Well, since Bavasi is practicing neither philosophy, I don’t think he’ll get anything from that statement.
However, I believe that most blogosphere commentators would quite heartily disagree with this statement. Why? You don’t overpay for median or even above average players. You overpay for superstar players because they are the rarest.
The philosophy you just laid out is actually closer to Bavasi’s than anything else….
Maybe Bavasi is trying to put together a package of prospects for this guy.
Actually last year the Mariner’s did increase the median from the prior three + years and it seemed to pay off…some. However for 2007 they stood third in the division behind Oakland and Anaheim for median income. If it is ‘now’ Bavasi’s “philosophy” it is because he has studied the others winning formulas and ‘gets it’ or was lucky last year. Regardless, one year does not make for a trend (or philosophy).
GMs should focus more on ‘median’ team salaries so that you build a balanced team with greater overall potential, rather than role the dice on a few “superstars” out performing the holes in your line up created cost cutting on the ‘rank and file’.
Asked whether the Tigers should sign A-Rod, Tiger GM Dave Dombrowski pointed out that no team has ever won a World Series while paying more than 17% of its salaries to one player. Makes a certain amount of sense . . .
Oh, but that’s “Star and Scrubs” and not “Stars and Scrubs”, right?
The failing of that 17% number is readily apparent on even superficial examination.
The loser of the World Series has a recent trend of going over 17% payroll on players however:
2007 COL - Todd Helton - 31%
2006 DET - Magglio Ordonez - 18%
2005 HOU - Jeff Bagwell 20%, Roger Clemens 26%
Call it a hunch, but I’d be willing to guess the Red Sox won for more reasons than the percentage of Todd Helton’s salary to Colorado’s payroll. Crazy, unexplainable stuff happens in the playoffs. See: Jeff Weaver, 2006 World Series.
On another note, in the spirit of optimism. I was at first bummed to not get even a Merry Christmas post, but the good news about no new posts in six days?
The Mariners haven’t made any bad roster moves in six days (and actually longer)!
GMs should focus more on ‘median’ team salaries so that you build a balanced team with greater overall potential, rather than role the dice on a few “superstars” out performing the holes in your line up created cost cutting on the ‘rank and file’.
The problem is that talent distribution in baseball is not a “normal” distribution (bell curve) that centers around media
salary, but one where there’s a small amount of superb players who can add 40-50 runs/4-5 wins to your team a year, a larger group of 1-3 win players, and a larger still group of 0-(-2) win players, a still larger group of worse players, and so on.
The problem is that, based on how baseball salaries work (teams control players during the first 6 years of their MLB careers and get significant price breaks), long-term contracts/perceived virtues of “proven veterans” and the aging process, means those “rank and file” players who are 1-3 win players will likely be 0-(-2) win players by the end of their contracts (see: Sexson, Richie and Everett, Carl).
The Mariners are the perfect example of that- they got old overnight from 2003 to 2004, and spent 250 million or so from 2004-2006 on teams that were collectively 40+ games UNDER .500. Even last year, they paid over 100 million for a team that was outscored by the opposition, and basically won 88 games on a fluke.
Or, for a comparison:
Mariners: 298-350, -237, 361 million
Team A: 292-356, -442, 190 million
Now clearly, the M’s are better than Team A if you look at run differential, and Team A has over performed their pythagorean projections as much as the M’s have underperformed them. But almost $200 MILLION has not led to dramatically better results on the field… but would it surprise you that in 2005, Team A ALSO spent part of a summer in contention?
So, if you are wondering who team A is…]\
One might also note that Team A dumped about 30 million in salary from 2006 to 2007… and didn’t really suffer in terms of their performance. That’s because the 30 million they dumped were very replaceable players. It’s just not that hard to build a cheap and mediocre team.
You bring up a good point, pitching should follow a different paradyne and should be broken out separately. IMO, spikes in payroll are welcome in the bullpen because pitching follows more closely to individual, rather than team building principles.
The problem with ‘comparatively’ overpaying for your “superstars” (at the Mariner’s budget level) is that you gamble way too much on their being really good. Replacing them becomes more and more impractical and prideful in SOME cases; and your ‘median’ players are not good either as a result.
A common sense approach. Successful franchises breakdown and overcome barriers between individual superstars and the rest of the team. GM – job-one is to place as few obstacles in the path as possible in order for a team to win.
GMs and other children reading: be careful who you look up to as “superstars.”
Monte:
I think a good practice is the exact OPPOSITE of what you’re recommending.
A) Bullpens are the place you DO NOT WANT spikes. Relievers are easy and cheap to find. DON’T SPEND THERE.
B) Yeah…if you have a superstar, you’re NOT GAMBLING. At the Mariners’ payroll level (which is quite high) or at the Cleveland Indian level. Player gets at the lower end of projections, he’s STILL a good players. Where you’re gambling is when you give superstar money to ordinary players—which the Mariners tend to do.
Really, it’s not as hard as you’re making it out to be.
You bring up a good point, pitching should follow a different (sic) paradyne and should be broken out separately. IMO, spikes in payroll are welcome in the bullpen because pitching follows more closely to individual, rather than team building principles.
You realize, of course, that the effective pitchers in the 2007 Mariner bullpen basically consisted of JJ Putz and a bunch of guys making MLB minimums, right? And the “proven veterans” who made more than that (Rhodes, Reitsma, Parrish and White) were basically useless and contributed nothing to the team?
The problem with ‘comparatively’ overpaying for your “superstars” (at the Mariner’s budget level) is that you gamble way too much on their being really good. Replacing them becomes more and more impractical and prideful in SOME cases; and your ‘median’ players are not good either as a result.
So, the logic is to gamble that mediocre-to-good players will be good and retain their abilities, instead of gambling that superstars will retain theirs?
For an example, let’s take two group of 4 arbitrary players, with the amount of runs they can be expect to add on offense/prevent on defense or pitching above an average player:
Player A: +40 runs, 15 million in salary
Player B: +30 runs, 10 million in salary
Player C: 0 runs, 350K in salary
Player D: -10 runs, 350K in salary
Total: 25.7 million, 60 runs
Player E, +15 runs, 6.4 million in salary
Player F, +15 runs, 6.4 million in salary
Player G, +15 runs, 6.4 million in salary
Player H, +15 runs, 6.4 million in salary
Total: 25.6 million, 60 runs
Now, let’s assume that our replacement players are -10 runs and will also make 350K. If injury strikes players C or D, it’s not a huge problem. If it strikes A or B, big problem. If E, F, G or H go down, though, it’s a pretty large problem, if not as large as A or B… and, to boot, AGING is also a factor- if E,F,G,H lose 20 runs of value in a season they become BAD players, whereas if A or B lose that, they are still above-average (they have a higher peak to decline from).
Spreading your salaries around to more of baseball’s “middle class” makes you vulnerable in more places to having age-related decline/injury/etc. Now, if you are the Yankees or Red Sox, no big issue, you just sign somebody else and let Giambi or Williams age on the bench… but the M’s aren’t.
Gwangung:
Pitching. I believe we are arguing the same point about. I used the bullpen ubiquitously, as meaning the whole pitching staff…. I maybe should have said that in my world starting pitchers would be the highest paid players on a team, and can justify bigger spikes in payroll there.
I am not making it hard; I just understand team psychology and dynamics better than most, and feel worth the time to give my two cents.
Not even saying a team should not go after superstars, but I too, am leery as to what Bavasi would consider to be a “superstar.” He/they need checks and balances…a median formula serves in this regard and guards against overspending for mediocrity.
eponymous :
ditto; the bullpen thing. I meant the entire pitching staff, whereby, if spikes in payroll represent “horses” out there on the mound, I am all for it.
During the ‘Gillick years’ the team’s median salary rose to its highest ever. In fact, the M’s lead the league in median salary for a couple of those years. I personally think Pat had a handle on that aspect of team building and I don’t think he was lucky.
Also if you will remember, when we lost a superstars like Griffey, Rodriguez or even Johnson (hate to loose good pitching) the team reloaded and went on to even better records the years following each superstar’s departure, respectively.
So the M’s have a recent history of playing better when the superstar does go down or goes away.
Asked whether the Tigers should sign A-Rod, Tiger GM Dave Dombrowski pointed out that no team has ever won a World Series while paying more than 17% of its salaries to one player. Makes a certain amount of sense . . .
In 2003, Pudge Rodriguez earned 20.5% of the Marlins’ payroll, which is humorous because most of that team was made up of players Dombrowski acquired before he left. I guess he immediately stopped paying attention to his former team and didn’t notice that they went out and won the World Series with one highly paid superstar and no one else making even half his salary.
Also, in 2004, Manny Ramirez earned 17.7% of his team’s payroll. I know, it’s seventh-tenths of a percentage point, but still, it’s more than 17%.
We are probably working from different sources, but I show Manny at $20.5M for 2004 with a team payroll of $127.3M which works out to 16.1%.
I was working of the USA Today salary database, which shows Manny at $22.5 million for 2004. So I assume you’re looking at Cot’s, which lists a $20.5 base salary, but I’m guessing he earned some of the bonuses that are listed in his contract? I’m really not sure. If I’m wrong, that’s cool. I mostly wanted to point out the Pudge figure.
In 2003 the Marlins median payroll was near the top at fifth, while their overall payroll was near the bottom. Boston is always near the top in both categories.
During the ‘Gillick years’ the team’s median salary rose to its highest ever. In fact, the M’s lead the league in median salary for a couple of those years. I personally think Pat had a handle on that aspect of team building and I don’t think he was lucky.
It worked OK for a number of reasons, but the 2004 collapse is also something his strategies contributed to- which, by the way, was historic (going from 93 wins to 99 losses in one year).
Also if you will remember, when we lost a superstars like Griffey, Rodriguez or even Johnson (hate to loose good pitching) the team reloaded and went on to even better records the years following each superstar’s departure, respectively.
Uh, going from 76 to 79 wins in Johnson’s case was pretty marginal, and Gillick wasn’t here for that, was he?
And yes, the Mariners did some good personnel management. They also got to expand the payroll in 2000 and 2001. Some of the players they added were also VERY good: Sasaki, Boone, Cameron, Olerud and Ichiro.
And again, 2001 isn’t very “recent”. “Recent” history is Carl Everett, Jose Vidro, Scott Spiezio, Jarrod Washburn and so on, in a failed attempt to recreate Gillick’s 2000-2001 drawing to an inside straight on the free agent market.
Blaming Gillick for 2004? No chance, not given his track record of building winners -vs- Bavasi’s record of building colossal meltdowns. No, Bavasi is responsible for 2004 - that’s a no brainer.
Johnson left in 1998, leaving the 1999 Gillick team to adjust to the loss of the best pitcher in baseball and team history. BTW, Gillicks first year saw payroll drop twelve-million dollars.
“Recent” - meaning the Seattle market is still the same size and payroll comparisons are still valid.
Lucky or Good - I’d take Gillick back in a heartbeat.
Blaming Gillick for 2004? No chance, not given his track record of building winners -vs- Bavasi’s record of building colossal meltdowns. No, Bavasi is responsible for 2004 - that’s a no brainer.
Hehe
In 2003, Pudge Rodriguez earned 20.5% of the Marlins’ payroll, which is humorous because most of that team was made up of players Dombrowski acquired before he left. I guess he immediately stopped paying attention to his former team
Well, I guess you can say he was wrong about Pudge’s salary in ‘03. But you can hardly accuse the guy of not paying any more attention to the Marlins, considering that Pudge, Cabrera, Willis, Rentaria and Jones are now Tigers–the Marlins have been migrating northward . . .
Blaming Gillick for 2004? No chance, not given his track record of building winners -vs- Bavasi’s record of building colossal meltdowns. No, Bavasi is responsible for 2004 - that’s a no brainer.
Go look at how many of the players in 2004 who had terrible seasons were signed/acquired under Gillick as opposed to Bavasi.
I’m not saying Bavasi is a better GM, but many of the problems Bavasi encountered in 2004 predated him, because the Mariners basically were keeping their Edgar/Boone/Wilson/Olerud core around too long, until they were no longer able to be productive players.
One might also notice that all three of Gillick’s teams melted down very badly after he left. My argument would be that Gillick’s very good at jumping out of the car as it goes off the cliff, and the Phillies better watch out in 2009.
Johnson left in 1998, leaving the 1999 Gillick team
<A HREF=”http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/execdb/showperson.php?fname=Pat&idx=GilliPa01&lname=Gillick”Gillick was hired AFTER the 1999 season concluded.
Lucky or Good - I’d take Gillick back in a heartbeat.
I will agree that he’s considerably better at free agent evaluation than Bavasi is.
well $6-9M of that was not paying RJ …
Team chemistry. It runs through the team, the manager, the staff all the way to the FO and GMs. Confidence in the GM is critical for any team to succeed. I have to think that had Gillick been there in 2004 the season would have turned out better. But there is no way to honestly argue either position.
Sorry, my two separate databases had shown - 1999 = Gillick. Anyway, I hesitated to use Johnson to bolster my position because he was a pitcher and nobody in his right mind would want to give up the best pitcher in the league. But that was Woody’s finest hour as ‘the Reluctant Hero’
Wa ha ha ha ha ha ha.
The ultimate in “team chemistry” would be a team where Willie Bloomquist clones comprised the entire organization.
From CEO to batboy? ALL WILLIE, ALL THE TIME.
Team chemistry. It runs through the team, the manager, the staff all the way to the FO and GMs. Confidence in the GM is critical for any team to succeed. I have to think that had Gillick been there in 2004 the season would have turned out better.
So had Gillick been there, Boone, Edgar, Wilson and Olerud would have all been able to hit worth a damn?
Seriously, that’s a very silly argument. GMs do not have magical properties of anti-aging and improving player performance, and 2004 was a clear case of the team being old… and the decisions to put those guys under contract for 2004 were those of one Pat Gillick. In addition, as has been detailed on the blog, Gillick WAS involved in the player personnel decisions.
I don’t think Bavasi is a good GM, but Gillick’s strategies tend to leave the team vulnerable to getting old and bad suddenly, which has happened every place he’s left. Like Auric Goldfinger says: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.”
This is my last post on this topic.
((”GMs do not have magical properties and improving player performance”))
Do you realize that one of the biggest obstacles the M’s face currently in bringing in quality free agents is the reputation of our current GM? Do you not realize that players follow certain GMs because they know they have a reputation of putting together winners? Gillick is one of those GMs. (and no, I did not set out to be a Gillick apologist).
Safe it to say, that you, or any other blogger, have no actual idea as to the extent of Gillick’s 2004 involvement with regards to team personnel decisions, any more than you know who was juicing and coming off inflated numbers that year.
And do not bolster your positions by calling mine very silly, that type of retort makes you sound smug, and I don’t think that is how you want to come off.
Thanks!
Do you have any evidence, at all, for your assertion that free agents won’t come here because of Bavasi?
To quote from the handy-dandy USSM Orientation post linked at the top:
So if you’re going to claim that: team chemistry is a factor in success on the field not only between players, but between the front office staff and players as well; that free agents won’t come to the Mariners because of Bill Bavasi; or that the “bloggers” here are all uninformed hooligans, while not providing ANY evidence to support your assertions…
Expect to get a lot rougher treatment than either eponymous coward’s post, or this one.
Do you realize that one of the biggest obstacles the M’s face currently in bringing in quality free agents is the reputation of our current GM?
No it isn’t. There’s no evidence that this is the case.
Do you not realize that players follow certain GMs because they know they have a reputation of putting together winners? Gillick is one of those GMs.
No they don’t. No he isn’t.
I don’t think it’s smug to say that these are silly opinions, because they are silly opinions.
Free agents don’t turn down the best offer on the table because of the reputation of the GM. Beltre and Sexson didn’t, and they were premier free agents that year — was Bavasi’s reputation any worse then, compared to the new, years-of-improvement Bavasi?
Like him or not, Bavasi’s got a fine reputation as a good guy to deal with, who does the right things for his players — it’s not like Jim Bowden, where there are bitter guys who got screwed on handshake deals around the league.
If you’re ignorant of that reputation, that’s one thing. But to say that something — which isn’t true — is the cause of something that isn’t happening, well, start at the start.
Further: free agents don’t follow GMs.
a) GMs don’t move enough
b) free agents aren’t free agents enough
c) free agents don’t turn down the best offer for one GM over another
What GMs can offer players they’re on good terms with is trust that they’re being brought on for the role they’re told, that they won’t (for instance) be offered arbitration after a short contract, that the terms of the off-contract no-trade will be honored, and so on.
There’s a substantial value to that compared to, say, signing with Jim Bowden (not to harp on him).
But where are these players who prove this point, choosing to pass up superior offers because they want to be on one team over another? They’re not out there.
Free agents pick the best offer, acting in their self-interest. That’s it. That’s all.
Um, allow me to point out that your argument went from:
“Team chemistry. It runs through the team, the manager, the staff all the way to the FO and GMs. Confidence in the GM is critical for any team to succeed.”
to
“Do you realize that one of the biggest obstacles the M’s face currently in bringing in quality free agents is the reputation of our current GM?”
In other words, you’ve changed your argument. Since DMZ and Jeff Nye looked at the second argument, let me clarify why I disagree about the first, and then come back to your new argument.
I find the idea of GMs being able to eke performance out of players through nebulous “team chemistry” to be ridiculous- the concept is mainly a backwards-looking idea of “well, they must have had chemistry because they won”. What GMs do is make sound or unsound player personnel and management decisions, and that is how we evaluate them in any sort of systematic manner. It’s fairly obvious that the Mariner loading up on FA veterans and the remnants of the 1995 team was going to come back and haunt them at SOME point, and 2004 was that point. Gillick did not leave Bavasi with much in the cupboard to deal with that. Therefore, I think it’s eminently fair to hold him responsible in part for 2004.
The problems with the 2004 team (which is what we are arguing about) had not very much to do with Bavasi’s ability to bring in quality free agents- the roster was mostly set (recall the 5 man rotation that had been in every start in 2003). The major additions were Spiezio, Guardado and Ibañez (one big flop, one injury-plagued player who was still good for a while when healthy, one very solid signing, and before you say that Gillick would have done better, James Baldwin and Jeff Cirillo say “Hi”)- and recall that Pat Gillick was on the payroll ADVISING Bavasi, Armstrong et, al. in 2004.
You know, I’m fine with being smug in the face of grossly incorrect arguments.