|By Adam P. Boyd||By 09-15-2010|
|1. By: maqman on 09-16-2010 08:05:05|
Good review Jason, don't disagree with any of your judgements. I'm still big on GMZ despite all the flak he has been catching lately because he has given me hope of a better future, despite this unmitigated disaster of a season. I'm hoping somebody like the Mets don't offer him their GM slot. The two dummies he reports to are dumb enough to let him go.
|2. By: maqman on 09-16-2010 08:06:29|
Sorry Adam, should have checked the author's name first.
|3. By: Jerry on 09-16-2010 11:08:47|
Good review. I'm looking forward to reading the next installment.
I really hope that the organization doesn't go with a knee jerk reaction to this season. Sure, there were some mistakes made. But I still think the process is sound. Jack and his cohort deserve at least another year or two to turn this around. Hopefully this Lueke thing doesn't torpedo them. Sure, it was handled very poorly. But I would rather give the team some slack for a poorly handled PR situation than for flawed talent acquisition. Jack is good at the part of his job that is most important: talent acquisition.
One other thing: I do think Jack deserves a lot of the credit for the turnaround in the farm system. The guy was a scouting director until he came here, and scouting and player evaluation is clearly his strong suit. He brought over guys that he worked with in the past, and has done a ton to meld sabermetric and traditional methods into the organization. McNamara is a protege, and I think Jack deserves a lot of credit for putting the right guys in the right positions to make great decisions. He may not be instrumental in all the details, but he built the architecture of a great organization. I hope he gets the opportunity to see this thing through. By 2012, this club will be in great shape. They just need to avoid the temptation to change horses midstream after a really disappointing season.
|4. By: Lailoken on 09-16-2010 12:56:54|
While I agree with most of your great article, I do have a minor quibble about the Snell/Wilson & Hall trades. They took on salary with unnecessary risk when we were still burdened with Silva's contract not to mention other deadwood. Later on Wilson didn't have to be re-signed, Snell could've been non-tendered, & Hall was mostly paid for by the Brewers but that money would've been better spent on other MLB or amateur talent. Still, an A overall.
|5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-16-2010 13:31:19|
Snell could not have been non-tendered -- he had guaranteed money for this season at $4.25 million.
As for re-signing Wilson, that is completely separate from the trade itself.
The M's paid so little to Hall that it's not even worth bringing up, thus not impacting the value of the trade in either direction.
|6. By: randallball on 09-16-2010 19:00:25|
Nice post and fair grading, Adam.
I am actually in the midst of a post very similar to this for my little blog. Grading Jack more on just trades, however.
|7. By: Lailoken on 09-16-2010 19:00:30|
Fair enough, I was mistaken on Hall & Snell's contract status. In light of the outside shot at making the playoffs in 2009 the trades made some sense. Cedeno was sure playing horrible at the time & Snell had the big AAA game while looking like a classic change-of-scenery player. The money ended up being wasted, but was somewhat justifiable at the time.
That extra 4.25 sure could've helped us get a bat this year though as would've the money we ate when trading Hall to the Red Sox. One would assume that whatever money was left on Hall's contract for this year, however neglible, factored into the decision to swap salary for salary in the form of Casey Kotchman too.
|8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-16-2010 19:23:51|
Know this, however. 4.25 ml didn't stop the M's from adding a big bat.
|9. By: Timberwolf on 09-16-2010 21:24:29|
You take chances when you see talent. Snell was worth a look. In year one Jack was looking for down the line talent. That being said, I sure don't want to see Snell back here next year.
|10. By: Adam P. Boyd on 09-16-2010 23:57:20|
I had/have no real problem with Jack acquiring Snell or Wilson - it would have been a coup if it had panned out.
As it stands, it was no major loss.
|11. By: jgstecker on 09-17-2010 08:18:52|
Trading is an important part of a GM's job, but when it comes to evaluation his trading record probably will have little to do with determining whether Jack keeps his job or not down the road.
Zdurenciek has three black marks this year: 1) the overall awful play of his team, 2) the Griffey/Wakamatsu incident, 3) the Lueke/Fusco incident. He may not be able to survive another.
The last two particularly incensed Chuck Armstrong, Jack's boss, because both events personally affected him. I think it's safe to say Chuck is not at all happy with Jack.Not a good position to be in. I think were not done seeing the effects of a lack of confidence between the President and the GM.
|12. By: Edman on 09-17-2010 10:42:31|
#11, I think that assumes a whole lot. No team would be happy about this season. I don't think it's safe to say anything, good or bad. I would say that Jack has taken a hit. But, if there was a true lack of confidence, Jack would have been fired, along with everyone else he hired.
Might there need to be a review of how they go about their business? Absolutely, as would any team that slid as far back as they have this year.
People really need to stop making stuff up. With all that's gone on, does anyone really need to add to it?
BTW, I suggest that people go read Shannon Drayer's latest post on her blog. I think it's a very fair evaluation of what she's observed versus what some want to believe happens with the front office. Some who don't want to believe what she's written, claim the Mariners somehow got her to create propaganda. How silly is that? She's not paid by the M's, and for as long as I've listened to her, she's by far the most objective M's reporter. If it smells, she says so. She doesn't Rick Rizz anything. I know some hate "objective", because is doesn't support their belief system. But, I found it insightful.
|13. By: KCMike on 09-17-2010 13:48:37|
Since I have seen Yuniesky Betancourt play in person at least 20 times in the last year, I can tell you from personal experience that I am very happy with the trade KC made. Time will tell how the young Seattle pitchers turn out. But as of this moment, this is clearly a loss for Jack's trade record.
|14. By: Rudolf on 09-17-2010 14:06:09|
|15. By: Shawnuel on 09-17-2010 14:45:47|
Well, enjoy it while you can KC, because I sincerely doubt this season with the bat was anything but an outlier for Yuni. The power he has is nullified by his complete lack of plate discipline and he's no where close to adequate at the most important defensive position on the field. And about 2.5 million Seattle fans are, most likely, just as happy with the trade as you are.
|16. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-17-2010 15:09:55|
Unfortunately for you and the rest of Royals nation, you're wrong.
Betancourt's been awful, again. Fifteen home runs from a shortstop is nice and all, but his ridiculously pathetic .282 OBP cancels out every one of those home runs and then some.
His defense is again terrible -- big shocker there -- and he's been a 0.3 WAR player this season, about what he was in his last three years in Seattle.
On top of that, KC paid him $2 million this season, will pay him $3 million in 2011 (M's kick in a mil for the '10 and '11 salaries of $3 and $4 mil total for each year) and there's a $2 million buyout.
In no way was the Betancourt trade a loss for Seattle and win for Kansas City. Not in any matter that actually helps baseball teams win games, anyway.
The deal could have been Betancourt for a player never to be named and it would have been a win for Zduriencik.
Betancourt remains one of the very worst everyday players in baseball.
|17. By: safecochatter on 09-18-2010 14:24:25|
it's looking like the tuesday game at oklahoma city,is columbus vs tacoma and it is just a one game,winner take all aaa championship?
|18. By: STEVEV on 09-18-2010 18:01:37|
Seattle had 5 of 6 minor league affiliates in the playoffs, two of them have already won championships (Tacoma and Everett) and one (Clinton) is tied 1-1 in it's championship series going into play on Saturday.
I'm really excited about the future of this organization, but as a "street fan" should I? Does being competitive at the lower levels really bode well for the future of the major league club?
Even if it isn't as good as it might seem, it's been a whole lot of fun following these kids this summer.
|19. By: STEVEV on 09-18-2010 18:11:16|
Oh, and I forgot, but to keep things on topic, I agree with Adam's assessment of the first year trades by Jack. I really, really agree with Jason on the Betancourt trade. Nothing that I can add to anything either of them wrote.
And as far as the Josh Lueke thing goes, I was a young man once and made some stupid mistakes too. That's how one learns and grows into an experienced person. As long as he truely learns from it. I've seen him pitch at Cheney Stadium several times, though, and would like to see what he can do at the major league level someday.
My apoligies for posting twice in a row.
|20. By: STEVEV on 09-18-2010 18:44:27|
I was wrong, Pulaski made the playoffs too. Six out of six minor league teams to win their respective divisions.
Wow! Please tell me this is a good thing.
|21. By: Edman on 09-18-2010 18:50:35|
Seattle's Arizona League team didn't make the playoffs.
How can getting playoff experience at any level, be bad? Of course it's a good thing.
|22. By: STEVEV on 09-18-2010 19:04:28|
Is that all it means?
Not to knock playoff experience, which I agree is always a good thing, but does it mean that Seattle's prospects are at least as good as anybody else's? I hope it means they're better...overall.
Or perhaps I should put it another way. Was it just a nice year for Seattle's minor league system? Did these teams win because they have talent on a level that is perhaps BETTER than most other clubs?
I want to know that I'm excited for a good reason, the future, and not just because the teams won THIS year.
|23. By: Lailoken on 09-22-2010 12:43:40|
The VSL & DSL teams made the playoffs too. 8 out of 9 teams went to postseason play. That is amazing. Equally amazing is that only one of the eight won their league's championship.
|Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central|
Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome