Candid Jack
It’s no secret that Jack Z is fairly cautious with what he says publicly. He almost always plays things close to the (sweater) vest, and that’s why it was so surprising to hear his aggressive tone in an interview with Mike Salk on Wednesday. If you missed the audio, Salk has a write-up with some quotes and his thoughts, including a link to the full interview.
The obvious takeaway is that Jack was unimpressed with the effort that some of the younger guys on the team put in last year. Given that they just acquired Miguel Olivo to start at catcher, he was even sufficiently annoyed by their performances to take away their jobs. This is probably the most open and honest Jack has been with the media since he was hired, and it wasn’t really positive honesty. He was frustrated, and it showed.
If you missed it, I highly encourage you to check out the link and listen to the audio.
I wonder how closely GMZ followed Pete Carroll this year. Sounds like he’s adapting the same message, that you need to earn your way on the roster, preferably over the carcass of another teammate. I wonder if thats the intention with signing Olivo… he’s a known quantity, we know what to expect from him, and we know what the least we can expect from that position. If Moore wants more playing time (or be a Mariner in 2012), he’ll need to justify it, not only be playing well but by being better than Olivo.
Being unimpressed with their performance is one thing, being unimpressed with their effort is a whole other thing. Not sure how he determined that certain guys weren’t trying hard enough, but that’s intriguing for sure.
So does everybody know what Jack means in reference to the younger guys? I sure don’t. Does he mean they weren’t working out enough in the weight room? Were they cracking too many jokes in the dugout and not having a stern look on their face? How are the young guys different from the vets?
By that do you mean that it was negative for the team that he was honest, or merely that he was honestly expressing a negative reaction?
It’s the right idea. The opening day roster will tell us whether he means this or not. Or whether Wedge is the right person to implement that. Or whether he has the leeway to make roster decisions based on this philosophy without having Chuck and Howie override him.
I think I like Simple Jack better, he was more ra-ra-ra-rational.
Yet Figgins was never given any public excoriation for his various shortcomings.
This bugs me a lot. I thought Jack was above making small sample size judgments. And if it’s about attitude or effort – what about all the slumping veterans who were sucking out loud? They weren’t out there doing “early work”, as Drayer likes to drone on about, either. Shouldn’t they have been providing leadership by example?
I think that’s the most interesting part.
And he’s certainly not speaking from the fan’s perspective; as an insider, he has info we don’t, particulary from folks who deal with the players from day to day, like the coaches.
This gets into speculation like young players not attaching themselves to vets for mentoring (or not doing it soon enought), but there’s something interesting there.
Dave, do you think that is fair position for him to take? You did compare the pay for 0-3 year players to slave labor.
Furthermore, even if it was a fair position to take, was it a wise thing to say out loud? (Two different questions here).
Great, I hope this doesn’t mean Jack will spend millions more dollars bringing in journeyman vets and send all our youngsters back to AAA. The young guys are about the ONLY reason to watch the Mariners next year.
I missed the interview so I don’t know the tone, but I think I agree with Jack in that the youngsters did not impress me at all with the exception of Smoak.
Smoak struggled and was dropped down to AAA, where he assumedly worked hard, or in any case he showed improvement when he came back.
The other guys like Moore and Saunders, showed very little development (at least to my eyes).
Also Tui, etc., they showed nothing.
We shouldn’t be angry at Jack until he trades all of the young guys away. This just means that “they have to earn their jobs” which I fully agree with.
I really like what I’ve seen so far from Smoak.
I hope he can continue with his development.
Nothing wrong with lighting fires. Any rational veteran without a long term contract will realize this also applies to him, too.
On the other hand, when your role model and team leader naps in the clubhouse in the middle of games…
In Griffey’s defense, it was hard to stay awake for M’s games last year.
In Griffey’s defense, it was hard to stay awake for M’s games last year.
Can’t argue with that.
The audio for the whole interview is linked at the bottom of the article.
“Listen to the full interview with Jack Zduriencik on Brock and Salk here.”
I believe that Shannon Drayer said that the younger players need to “not sit on the training room tables or at their lockers playing games on their i-pads or on sofas watching meetings.” This is what she perceived from Jack Z’s interview. They all need better work ethic. They could take a page out of Ichiro’s book. Although, we all know that no one puts in more work then Ichiro.
Bout time someone called a spade-a-spade in the M’s organization!
Hm. Makes me wonder why the younger players weren’t going up to Ichiro before this. (We know Saunders did, at least once).
Dave, do you think that is fair position for him to take? You did compare the pay for 0-3 year players to slave labor.
The pay isn’t great in comparison to the vets, but it is a whole lot more than they would get in AAA. Which is ultimately Jack’s point.
It also has to be much more worrisome to management when you get that attitude from the younger players. The stereotype is that it’s the fat and lazy veterans (insert your own example from recent years here) who need to be pushed by the young and eager rookies. When the young guys are complacent, that speaks to an organizational culture that has to change, and that makes this the most worrisome article I’ve read on the M’s in awhile.
Asking a baseball player to put in the work, play the game right, and be accountable for their progress is worth $450k a year. It’s the same approach you ask for your young employees in a business when they start off making $65k.
Saying baseball players in years 0-3 are slave laborers is ludicrous. You’ve heard it said a hundred times, it’s “easy” to get to The Show, it’s more difficult to succeed.
I wanna ask Shannon why all that extra BP and infield Lopez took didn’t get him into the All-Star game.
smb-
It got him out of Seattle, didn’t it– maybe secretly, all along, that was Lopez’s goal?
I like this… he’s pretty much saying it doesn’t matter how good you COULD be, if you get a shot, you damn well better take advantage because were not waiting around anymore. You better get ready for that shot, so when you get it you don’t blow it. Put in the work, and get with it. We aren’t gonna put up with losing anymore.
GO JACK, best I’ve felt about him in awhile.
Saunders getting all Shogun on us. Bring it Condor!
Would it not be cool to see the entire outfield doing sumo squat stretches between innings?
Liam, thank you for the heads up on the audio.
I think that some commentators are getting too defensive. We have no real idea what Jack is referring to here. Is it insufficient work? Is it failing to take the situation seriously? Is it partying?
To put this in another context, Tottenham Hotspur’s manager Harry Redknapp told his players that they have a choice – they can play football (soccer) for the team, or they can go out and party. But not both. The Vancouver Canucks try the same thing. It is a demand that you recognise that you are getting paid (even at rookie levels) an astronomical sum, but this demands a certain commitment. If you are unwilling to make that commitment, do you deserve the trust of the organisation. And for every prodigy that can win without the commitment, there are 10 equally talented players who fail because of the lack of hard work. Look at Felix as an example of someone who sort of coasted on talent for a couple of seasons, but then when he really matched commitment to talent…
Again, I like the general theme of “accountability”.
Getting rid of Jose Lopez, OK, first step.
Wakeup call to possibly complacent young guys, OK, done.
NOT done: Is this “accountability” message getting through to GMZ’s favorites?
Namely, Jack Wilson and Figgy also sucked last year.
I don’t like that Jack waxed eloquent about Figgin’s “toughness” in the interview. It sounded like he was making excuses for a teacher’s pet. Where’s the accountability?
And why the heck was the first base coach, whom a while back was the worst third base coach I’ve ever seen, actually seemingly costing us a couple of wins, not fired? Where’s the accountability there?
I like the “accountability” message.
I don’t like that Jack seems to be inconsistent about it.
However, Wedge strikes me as more consistent. But the bad thing is that he could be handcuffed like Wak seemed to be regarding Jack’s favorites (Figgy, etc.).
I pray it is not so. I hope that Jack can be self aware that he has a problem regarding “favorites”, Figgy and Jack Wilson, and maybe this first base coach also (the only guy not fired though he was the worst).
And I hope Wedge has a free hand.
Well with that said above, it probably serves nothing to chew Figgins out for last year because indeed he was coming around a bit in the latter half.
The Ichiro, Figgins, one, two should be better this year, but we need the 3 to 9 batters to be something more than the freaking blackholes they were last season.
And there may be something indeed to the young guys needing to work harder, because it’s just my impression but Moore seemed to step up a little and play better after the gaggle of young guys came up, or maybe after his playing time was cut down by Bard.
And at that time I was thinking that wtf was he cruising up to now, he just needed a stick?!?
samregens: moving a third-base coach to first base is a demotion. There’s the accountability. And the fact that people were playing badly is not proof that they weren’t working or that they weren’t trying hard.
Haha yes JZ! I love it. Light that fire. I think this also is him indirectly explaining the Olivo signing, and I’m ready to give that transaction a chance before I get too annoyed with it. Maybe it can help, especially if JZ sees the leadership level in him.
And I DO think that leadership is key. What Jeter and Longoria and Haladay bring to their teams (besides buttloads of talent) is a determination and cool-headedness that is contageous. Just look what Longoria did to BJ Upton last year…
Also recommend the Ted Simmons interview on the Hot Stove League.
If players aren’t ready to accept, they can’t catch it.
(Basicially, I scorn leadership arguments, because you can seldom define it, let alone instill it on purpose. Given that, you’re better off focussing on stuff you CAN instill reliably, like talent and discipline).
Talent FIRST
I “read” the interview when I heard it as Jack Z letting the entire organization know that he, personally, will be holding folks accountable this year. After all, he did include Wedge in saying that folks were “getting that message”. I think he regrets standing back and watching the dominoes go up in flames before they even had a chance to fall last year, without acting sooner.
He tried to stand back and let Wak bring his “belief system”, he let Chuck and Lincoln have their say with bringing Griffey and Sweeney back… But, none of that worked out too well, and the only head being talked about when the season was over was Jack Z’s.
I think he has ALREADY gotten this same message himself– loud and clear. His job is not safe if the M’s don’t perform. And he’s in the ultimate position of this organization of being accountable for other people’s achievements, or lack of the same.
He wasn’t hands on about that dilemma last year, and it cost the team many steps in the wrong direction.
And he’s not gonna let that happen again this year, is what I heard. He’s not gonna sit back and let other people in the organization embarrass him again.
I think the professionalism he wants to see from the young guys is an attitude, more than performance, critique. As in, it’s one thing to be excited and happy to make it to the bigs, it’s another thing to do that when a team is flailing and playing horribly. It’s about tact and professionalism. I think they want the young guys to not just be happy to be playing in the majors, but to be thinking about themselves as the answers to what fails the M’s, not just guys lucky to be in a spot to make a Major League roster– and then, when they realize that, to approach the game with that in mind. Every day. We’re asking a LOT of our young players these next two years– it’s best that they understand that, and work with that in mind, starting right now.
We need the kids in Tacoma to raise this sights above “I want to make it to Seattle”, up to a higher goal, even while still in Tacoma, Lancaster, Everett, etc. They need to be working their butts off as if every day is the difference between being the Pittsburgh Pirates or making it to the World Series.
We’re trying to change this team’s outlook/appearance/routine, everything.
I think it’s entirely appropriate if you want to accomplish that, that the first kick in the pants should come during the offseason– when the individuals can make the biggest push towards showing their dedication to that goal. And come back in February embarrassed, pissed, reinvigorated, and with a chip on our shoulders.
I think the message is– show up in Peoria ready to win your job. Ready to win the West. Ready to play your best season.
That’s what we need from each and every one of you (young and old)!
I support that message. And the change in philosophy.
(I think it mirrors what Sark has done with the Huskies football team– first step is to change the attitude… And the very LAST thing you want is for an organization to be comfortable, and NOT VISIBLY UPSET, with putting up their worst season ever– whether it’s the Huskies or the Mariners…)
After a day or so to digest, I’ve come around to thinking that this season is shaping up to be less “rebuilding” or “retooling” and more of a “redux”.
Position players:
-2009 was a surprise, showed what could happen when players play to potential and or stayed healthy.
-2010 was the opposite but the same version of roster construction was employed albeit with some risks (LF, C, SS, DH, 1B, 2B&3B swapping positions). Each one was a dice roll that could have come up sixes but instead came up snake eyes.
-2011 is basically just 2010 again with some new faces, less risk, less upside but again the same kind of roster construction. It’s GmZs opportunity to show that 2010 could have worked at least on offense and defense.
I agree with “mrzdevotee” and others: $400k+ is a lot of money, more than the US president, more than I’ll likely earn in ~20 years of wage labor. These players should be acting like Ichiro, should be devoted to health, nutrition, stretching, etc, should act as if they were training to go for an Olympic gold medal, every day. Anything less is, to me, arrogant and selfish.
Another thought: I heard Dave’s rants against Olivo, and understand the criticism, but I’d love to see some quantitative analysis. What’s your numbers on projecting Olivo to 1 WAR (or not) and how that isn’t worth ~$3.5mil to the Ms? Is he not at least 10 runs better than Moor
e/etc just by his CS%?
You can’t really compare the two players in the manner some of you are attempting. It’s silly to look at them head to head, thinking that’s all there is to it. Olivo is, right now, all he’s ever going to be. Moore is still a young player with a small number of major league ABs. He still has unrealized potential – Olivo doesn’t.
Hmmm. Let me think back to a couple of rookies who let slip to the press about the Napster. So after getting to the show, the Tacoma boys discover sleeping on the job is OK. Does anyone besides me see dots between the kids getting this impression and not cranking it up from day 1?
You also have to consider the opportunity cost. Signing Olivo means less games for Moore to show that he can handle the job. He’ll be turning 29 when Olivo’s contract expires so it’s now or never.
You can still trade Major League baseball players.
If Moore plays his way onto the field then Olivio gets traded.
That’s probably the best case scenario. Moore elevates his game and the Mariners either get a new piece somewhere in the org for Olivio or, at the very least, wipe his salary off the books.
If you’re Adam Moore, this is a real life kick in the ass. Maybe he imbeds himself in ST. Maybe it takes a few months. Maybe it takes a year.
IMO, if it takes him that long, I’m glad we have Olivio (or someone like him) to keep the seat warm.
GM Jack Z. has said recently he is looking for an infielder. Jose Flores from Cleveland Rule 5 draftee is not MLB ready. Eric Wedge is reported to like Luis Valbuena, Cleveland infielder. Who will the M’s trade to complete this deal for them both, (and I hope it isn’t RHP Josh Lueke)?
The Ancient Mariner
But the other coaches were mostly fired while this guy who messed up a lot, kept his job.
samregens: the other coaches were fired for bigger issues than sending runners unwisely. (And btw, he was far from the worst 3B coach out there . . . you obviously never saw “Windmill” Kim.)
ck: the Jose Flores we took in the Rule 5 draft is a reliever, not an infielder (that’s SF’s Jose Flores).