But…on the issue of his advocating on behalf of Hargrove’s return, he’s getting a pass. Or, maybe people commenting just haven’t read whatever article(s) it was that I was reading this morning (perhaps Larue in the TNT…) that talked explicitly about how Bavasi advocated more fiercely on behalf of Hargrove than he did for himself (not at all).

From comments last year and earlier this year (inclusive of Bavasi’s seeming disgust with Hargrove’s 12 man bullpen thing, though he said that was Mike’s decision), it seemed like Bavasi was never really on Hargrove’s side. But perhaps that was incorrect (perception on my part, or others as well).

What’s funny is that in the videogaming industry, Nintendo is the team always looking to do things differently — the road less traveled, so to speak. It’s too bad they’ve opted for the status quo approach in baseball instead.

I disagree, and for a couple reasons. Because Hargrove’s in front of us 162 games, we rightfully have much more frequent opportunity to observe his actions and criticize them. So I understand that in raw terms of words expended, sure.

But we’ve given Bavasi the same hard time when we disagree with him. Our reactions this off-season were pretty clear: we hated the Everett signing, we hated the Washburn signing, and we weren’t happy about the Ibanez extension (though that’s not a Bavasi thing).

There was no pass there, and if we haven’t been particularly critical in a while, that’s the cyclical nature of the GM’s work. I’m sure before the season starts it’ll look like we beat on Bavasi too much and Hargrove gets off easy.

“I have a real hard time labelling Sexson and Beltre as busts.”

I’m not sure they are accurately described as “busts” either, but it is fair to criticize the moves on a performance relative to contract basis. Also, I think the Sexson contract is more subject to fair criticism than the Beltre deal, and was at the time the deal was made.

Sexson was coming off a bad shoulder injury, caused simply by swinging a bat, and some thought it difficult to assess the risk of it being (or becoming) chronic. He had already turned 30 by the time he signed with Seattle, for a ridiculously high ($50M), too long (4 years) and back-loaded ($44M of the $50M, including pro-rated bonus, over the last three years of the deal). If you look at Sexson’s “most similar” player comps at B-R.com, all of the players who have already hit 30 on that list fell of a cliff at an age when Richie will be right in the middle of his contract, making $14M a year. Although Richie has basically been a productive hitter in all but two months of his Seattle career, there is still plenty of reason to think his will be a huge albatross contract sometime over the next two seasons.

In contrast, Beltre had not yet had his 26th birthday when he was signed, and was coming off a year in which he finished #2 in NL MVP voting. There was (and remains) plenty of reason to think Beltre was just coming into his peak years, which should last through the life of the contract he signed.

Though both players have played well this year from June on, Beltre is probably the better bet to sustain it over the course of the next couple of years, simply based on an expectation of age-related decline for Sexson. Though they signed for roughly the same average annual salary (including bonus), Beltre was (and is, even though thus far Richie has been more consistently productive) the far more likely bet to produce throughout the life of the contract than Sexson.

Ego traps us into costly mistakes

This is not only an asinine statement, it’s offensive. You sound like you’re wishing for an injury. Do you really think pitching, what, 203 innings rather than 200 will result in an injury?

Thing is, the articles today that I read pretty much say that it was Bavasi who went to bat for Mike Hargrove, to keep him on. That Bavasi chose to stress THAT point with Lincoln and Armstrong, even while not stressing the point that he (Bavasi) should necessarily be back.

So, I think giving Bavasi a pass is wrong, and that this, HIS CHOICE of manager, is perhaps one more example of his hit/miss record with regard to talent evaluation. Apparently that hit/miss thing doesn’t stop with players.

Well, honestly, so were the Dodgers back when Buzzy Bavasi and Walter O’Malley ran things. Branch Rickey (a great GM who they ran off) got the title “the Mahatma” out of sarcasm from reporters who were tired of his moralizing, not because of respect. George Weiss (Yankee GM) was notorious for being a cold bastard.

And they ALL won buttloads of games.

So I’m not convinced the problem is being corporate and PC. I don’t think having Lou Piniella or Sparky Anderson turns this organization into a winner. The thing is that Weiss, Bavasi and Rickey were all great GMs who did a good job of evaluating talent and building good baseball teams. The evidence that this organization has the skills to build an outstanding MLB organization capable of consistently winning, year in, year out is mixed at best.