The Mariners need help and they need it fast. They need more than just another bat or two that might help wake up an offense that has been dreadful for the first month and a half of the season. They need more than an outfielder capable of chasing down fly balls in left field at the spacious Safeco Field. They need more than Erik Bedard and J.J. Putz to get back to 100% physically. What the Mariners really need is a leader.
If you look up and down the Mariners roster you see some quality names like Ichiro, Adrian Beltre and Raul Ibanez. You see promising youngsters like Jeff Clement and Wlad Balentien. You’ve got ace pitchers in Erik Bedard and Felix Hernandez, and a dominant closer in J.J. Putz, but what you don’t see is a true leader.
You might be able to make the argument that the above names lead in their own ways, but the problem from afar is that they all lead in the same way, with actions not words, and as of right now their “actions” are not all that inspiring.
Ichiro would be the most logical choice for leader of the team as he is the face of the franchise, but Ichiro obviously has shied away from that role since the day he came here. Ibanez is a quality guy, much like Edgar Martinez in the way he handles himself, but is he really going to chew on guys when they need their butts kicked? Beltre is a tremendous talent but again is more of the silent type. The pitchers, well, they are pitchers. Putz is the closest thing that resembles a leader, but he’s the closer. He might lead the pitching staff, but that’s not enough.
Manager John McLaren has tried to wake the team up with outbursts in the clubhouse and ejections from games, but it hasn’t seemed to do much yet. McLaren, as the manager, can only do so much. He isn’t on the field playing the game, he doesn’t run out of the dugout with the rest of that team with an attitude that says, “we are going to win this game.”
This is an issue that has plagued the Mariners for year. If you look back to the glory years of Mariners baseball it is easy to pin point a leader on each of those teams. The teams in the 90s had Ken Griffey Jr. and Jay Buhner to lead vocally while 2001 had an injured Buhner serving as a cheerleader and Brett Boone. Other than that, this is a team that has been struggling to find it’s identity since 2001.
The Mariners last year clearly over achieved. I am not in the group that believes this team was truly a condender. I do believe however that this team had a leader, one that it could use right now. A guy by the name of Jose Guillen. While Guillen isn’t off to a great start with Kansas City (.185/.217/.339) he is the vocal leader that this team sorely needs. Even though he was new to the organization last year, the casual fan could see the team rallied around Guillen. He could motivate guys and push guys. Guillen had a swagger, something that the Mariners do not have this year. His production on the field can be replaced (it can be replaced right? someday?), but right now his leadership and swagger is sorely missed.
Send Kudos to Prospect Insider for this Report!
Leadership could not possibly be more overrated. Leadership isn’t going to make Raul Ibanez a major league leftfielder. Leadership isn’t going to make Richie Sexson hit like it’s 2005. Leadership isn’t going to make Jarrod Washburn anything better than a fourth starter. And leadership isn’t going to give John McLaren a clue.
I don’t mean to rag on you because it’s nice to see people contributing to this site while Jason is on hiatus, but I could not disagree more with this post.
I do agree with you that leadership is overrated, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t play a role in a team’s success. You are correct when you say that leadership isn’t going to make Richie hit or Raul play better defense, but a true leader will raise the intensity level and focus of a team, therefore making them play better. The Mariners have had no swagger or confidence at all this season, especially lately. They look lost and just not into the game. A true leader would help the team snap out of that funk. When someone is struggling they need someone to follow, that is where a leader comes in. Think back to the times you played sports growing up, I know that any team that I was on or consistently around (and this includes two Division III National Championship teams) had great players but also great leadership. The leader(s) helped hold the other players accountable, and again, while I agree with your premise that leadership is overrated, I think you are underestimating the role that leadership does play.
Worst. Post. Ever.
Leadership has zero effect on how well this team plays. We need more TALENT on this roster, particularly offensively, and the corner outfield spots and 1st base on defense.
Do you think we need more grit, hustle, and professional hitting too? Because chasing those ‘abilities’ is what got us here in the first place. Please take your cliches else where, I’m more interested in serious analysis.
At least TRY to be a tad constructive, Grant, c’mon. As much as you believe acq’s post is more crap than interesting, disagreeing, even wholeheartedly, is quite different than being an ass. Guess which side YOUR post falls under?
Way to put yourself out there. I enjoyed reading that.
I agree that the M’s do need a leader. That’s a critical ingrediant and I don’t think they have it.
But even if the spirit is willing, the flesh can’t be weak and the M’s need talent. Overpaid and declining veterans are not going to get it done.
“Think back to the times you played sports growing up, I know that any team that I was on or consistently around (and this includes two Division III National Championship teams) had great players but also great leadership.”
Great leadership is nice to have. I think it’s value is diminished as players get older. As Grant notes, grit, hustle, professional hitting (and their cousins, determination, chemistry, and clutch ability) are the exact things this organization has pursued for years, over talent. Many players on this team were purported to be leaders at one point (not to mention failed acquisitions past). It’s not that their leadership skills magically vanished when they arrived in Seattle. It’s that teams without the talent to win always *seem* leaderless.
Leadership, at the big league level, is a myth. It’s something people see only when they want to.
This organization does need a leader, but not one the field or in the dugout, and not one with magic “push everyone to do better” dust. It needs a leader in the front office who knows how to assemble a roster.
DNC, I appreciate you taking in my points and intelligently debating them. That was the whole point of the post. Grant on the ohter hand, I have no problem with you thinking the post was bad (the entire point of the post was to get a solid debate going) you went too far. It’s my first post on here and I was going out on a limb and trying to go in a different direction than the ones that have been covered everywhere else. Relax man, try constructive criticism. Slack, thank you for seeing what I was trying to do. Guys, I agree that this team needs WAY more talent, but that is an obvious flaw. This, to me, is something more subtle, that I think could make a difference. Not everyone is going to agree, and that’s fine, I was just trying to make people think a little bit. DNC, I agree with your suggestion at the end about a leader in the front office and I totally agree; however, I still think someone needs to lead the guys on the field. Thank you again for the constructive responses.
acqb1424 I apologize, my comment was too harsh, particularly considering you are new posting here.
Let me try again,
If you are going to claim that leadership has a tangible effect on the W-L record of a team I think you should have some data to back that up. To my knowledge there has never been any sound evidence that this is the case. I think baseball in particular (as compared to basketball, football, soccer) ‘leadership’ has no effect on results because when a player is batting no one one his team effects the outcome besides him. This is largely true for fielding as well although cooperation is occasionally required as when a double play is turned (however I think that sportwriters often over play the value of the 2B and SS working well together double play as they do with the value of leadership, if a players is a good defender at SS he will still be one regardless of how good his second baseman is). This is part of what I love about baseball as you can compile a lineup entirely of all-stars and you will have a filthy offense. If A-Rod hits 50 HRs it doesn’t make Pujols and more or less likely to do so. This is not the case in basketball where the ball must be shared and all-star teams are often inferior to the top teams in the league that have a few role players.
If you really believe that leadership has real value I encourage you to do a study of some sort examining this issue. I think the best way to do this would be to look out how individual players fared while their ‘leader’ was on their team and then at their performances after they were separated (you would also need to factor in how aging might effect the players performance), however I feel certain that the results would show no significant improvement occurs when a player has ‘leadership’ as I have seen several studies trying to measure intangible qualities such as this, and all have concluded that they have no value.
Again I apologize for my impoliteness and good luck posting here in the future.
“you can compile a lineup entirely of all-stars and you will have a filthy offense.” And yet, the Yankees still haven’t won in years. You think leadership has ANYTHING to do with it? I’m not arguing that it does…just sparking conversation.
Grant,thank you for the post. I appreciate your thoughts and comments. I agree with you on what you said, and if I had time to really research your points I would at least try, but I don’t have the ability to do that at this moment. I think FelixElRey brings up a good point though because you can look at a team loaded with All-Stars that doesn’t do much (like he said the Yankees) and then you look at a team like last year’s Rockies where there wasn’t really a big time household name at the start of the season, but they gusy really bougt into the “team” concept. What are your guys thoughts? To me, it seems, teams that actually play like a “team” do better than a team that plays like individuals. I think this has the potential to be a good debate, and that’s what I was trying to accomplish with the post. I”m not Jason by any means, I’m just trying to fill in when he’s gone. At least I hope I’ve made everyone think a little bit!
Sorry not to continue the debate…is there a point where this team is force to bring Jeremy Reed up? He’s killing the ball and with power. Or, do you think we’re content to let him dominate AAA and hope to trade him for someone of a little value. I think that if he isn’t in our future plans, then keep him there instead of risking him sputtering again and have no trade value. However, if a guy hits like that, it certainly seems like he could have a future with us, so it might behoove us to give him another (and final) shot at the bigs. I was a huge Jeremy Reed fan, and it kills me to refer to him as the “Can’t miss prospect who missed”.
On another note, Triunfel has been getting 2 hits a night for a while now and hasn’t been making an error every night like the season started out. Aumont has yet to give up a run. At what point to these two get promotions? Or are they young enough that they’ll stay where they are at for the entire year?
Felix,
I don’t think you’ll see Reed get called up anytime soon. Obviously the Mariners’ brass values Cairo for whatever reason, and if Balentien was to really struggle I think they’d make a trade for a veteran. Reed is killing the ball, but I bet he gets traded, possibly to San Diego now that they’ve released Jim Edmonds. As for Aumont and Triunfel, well, Aumont will need to be placed in the starting rotation on a full time basis before he gets promoted. I see that happening sometime this month (the weather will start to warm up, he’s been lights out). As for Triunfel, I’d like to see him hit for a little more power before he gets promoted. Again, he’s only 19 and I’d have no problem with him staying in High A ball all year.
I’m actually on both Dawg’s and acqb’s side here — yes this team drastically needs some leadership. While it’s not something that shows up in the box score, it is important and it does help. Having a vocal leader does help teams — having someone that can lead by example, by stepping up and getting guys going helps.
And, honestly, this organization needs some leadership. Chuck Armstrong has been throwing guys under the bus since before RJ left (and Armstrong was part of the reason there). I’m sick and tired of the Chuck and Howie show. These guys shouldn’t be leading ANY organization. They’re terrible executives…
Someone like Ichiro or Beltre needs to really step it up and lead by example. Or Raul. Anyone. They’ve got leaders. They just need to pull their heads out, get out of this mental funk, and lead. By example.
But, really, it all comes from the top. With mental midgets at the top, it’s no wonder this organization and team is struggling mightily.
I said back in 2004 that this team will not make it back to the playoffs with Chuck and Howie at the top. I honestly still believe that…
Jerry Brewer of the Seattle Times has an article today about this very same subject. It’s a good read and it actually does what we’ve been doing here in debating both sides, suggesting that there is no leadership or chemistry and that also there are no bats. An interesting read, especially because it basically sums up what we’ve been debating.