USSM Goes To Safeco Recap
It was awesome.
Okay, you probably wanted more details than that. So, let’s see what I can remember off the top of my head before I hand the comments over to those of you who made it to Saturday night’s shindig to fill in the blanks.
We packed out the Ellis Pavilion. I don’t think we could have fit another soul in there. The M’s event staff did a a great job with setup, though – I would have never believed that we could get 300 people into that room and have everyone be able to see/hear without any problems. The M’s, as a whole, were tremendous in helping put the whole thing together.
I think Jack and Tony better get used to long standing ovations when they come to these things.
You guys did a really good job with the questions. They were great.
Stuff you guys care about that Jack/Tony said at the event, as best as I can remember and paraphrase:
Settle in for the Jack Wilson era – he’s here for the next two or three years. This was not a stop-gap move, and Jack is a huge fan of what he brings to the team. There just isn’t much out there in the way of talent at SS to be had, and they thought Wilson could help them now and going forward.
Blengino’s been on Zduriencik to acquire Ian Snell for a couple of years now. They think that, while he’s a risk, he fits into the pattern of players they’ve been targeting in other deals – young, able to help immediately, and under club control for 3+ years.
The massive importation of left-handers isn’t an accident. They realize the park is really friendly to lefties and much less so than righties. When they were looking at the roster they inherited, they couldn’t believe how badly it was suited to Safeco Field. They’re setting out to fix that, obviously.
They believe in the value of defense, especially in premium spots, but also saw that as the best path to success in 2009. They realized that there was just no way they were going to be able to fix the problems with the offense and pitching staff in one off-season, but due to defense being cheap, they thought they could make the defense a strength of the team very quickly. The strong emphasis on defense is partially about the availability of wins. As Blengino said “we’ll take wins wherever we can get them”. If the market shifts and defense becomes more highly valued, or better hitters become available, expect to see the M’s be more willing to bring in less proficient glove guys.
Yuniesky Betancourt wasn’t their favorite guy ever.
Blengino thinks Mike Cameron is massively underrated. We obviously agree – we’ve been raving about Cameron for something like 10 years now.
Langerhans was the fruit of a suggestion from Tom Tango. Thanks, Tom – he’s awesome.
The timing of Saunders call-up; they reached a point where everyone who saw him play felt he was ready, and so even with four LHPs and Roy Halladay on the schedule, they brought him up because they thought he was able to help the club. Jack’s been extremely impressed so far, and you get the feeling that Saunders’ early play has helped him cement his spot as the team’s 2010 left fielder.
Brandon Morrow – the yo-yo situation with the way his season has gone was as frustrating for them as it was for us. You could tell that Jack wanted to get his side of the Morrow thing out there, as he explained his view of the back-and-forth without anyone even asking about him specifically. They see him as a big part of their 2010 rotation.
Phillippe Aumont – Blengino had seen him extensively pre-draft and always felt he was a reliever. Everyone in the organization felt that his future was in the bullpen, so while they agreed that it was weird to limit a 20-year-old to relief work, they felt like he was a unique situation and that he’s got a chance to be a shut down, end of game closer very soon. They reserve the right to change their minds in the future, but they certainly didn’t talk like guys who saw him as a major league quality starting pitcher.
Jack is 100% dead set on winning a World Series in Seattle. If you didn’t like anything else he said (well, first off, you’re crazy), you had to be thrilled to see the remarkable dedication he has to that singular goal. The M’s are in very, very good hands.
DMZ: I’ll quickly add a couple of things. One, they’re a great comedy team, and you can see how easily they work together and trust each other. And you also see one of the fundamental differences in that and in Bavasi’s approach. Bavasi talked about wanting all the information, and took a step with hiring a stats guy to consult. Zduriencik doesn’t just want someone to run some historical minor-league valuations, or look at list of players they can pick as part of a larger, horrible trade — they brought in Langerhans on the recommendation of their analysis people, validated by their scouts, and the guy who’s in charge of the baseball analysis is one of Zduriencik’s hands, and has been working closely with him for ages.
Which reminds me — Tony’s been pushing Gutierrez on Jack for years. Every time Gutierrez makes a great play, give a small thanks to Tony. And to Jack for listening.
Also, on Wakamatsu, they’re big fans of what he and the staff are doing in creating a winning atmosphere which, in turn, allows them to be confident about bringing on players (like Snell, say) where they think a change of organization might do them good. Obviously, I’ve been a continual skeptic of chemistry as a valuation metric (see my howl about Shelton/Sweeney) but if there’s a way to make it into something that allows them to attract and retain the kind of player they want, I’m entirely willing to give it a chance.
So yeah. I don’t know heading into this off-season if there was (or could have been) a tougher sell on the team than me, and here I am, wondering if maybe they’re figuring out a way to build a clubhouse into a recruiting advantage. I’m a happy dude, and I hope everyone understands why.
Thanks for the recap – good stuff.
As a non-attendee I’d be very interested in a more in-depth recap of Zduriencik’s comments on the handling of Morrow.
Was there much Wlad talk or can we assume Saunders talk doubles as Wlad talk?
Also, any discussion regarding signing Ackley?
Terry,
Despite my presence, there was zero Wlad talk.
Dave spoke about the progress re: Ackley before Tony/Jack got there. Essentially, this is what happens every year, almost no above-slot deal happens before the deadline, don’t panic, etc.
Appreciate the long-winded recap. What I got out of all of that (besides that our future appears exceedingly bright) is that Blengino is an indispensable part of the staff…I hope we can keep him around for awhile as it seems at this rate he’ll eventually be in line for his own well-deserved GM spot.
I think all of the discussion of Ackley was in the “pregame” discussion – essentially, having too many awesome outfielders is a nice problem to have. He isn’t a project (ie. “whenever he learns to hit a curveball, he can make the majors”); he can be in the majors soon.
Jack and Tony did talk about building through the draft; Tony specifically noted that the Yankees won their run of recent Series with home grown talent, when those guys were in their prime.
Any discussion of the incessant bunting & other small-ball tactics?
Did anyone talk about Tui, and his role in the future of the org?
robbbbbb,
Someone asked about Tui, and they were positive (mostly regarding his spring), said that it was rotten luck that he and Wilson got hit with injuries, but they also said that they weren’t certain he was a 3B in MLB (was that Blengino who said that?).
I’d be very interested in a more in-depth recap of Zduriencik’s comments on the handling of Morrow.
He basically walked through the stuff that happened this year, from spring training up to now. Most of that you’re probably familiar with. His point was primarily that at each stage – the health issues, shifting back to closer, bombing in Texas, being stretched out, transitioning to starting in the majors instead of Tacoma – the circumstances ended up pushing things in that direction, even though a lot of it wasn’t ideal. Jack was very clear that they see Morrow as a starting pitcher, though, and aren’t planning to explore other paths unless that definitively fails.
Great recap! This gets me even more excited about the future.
The Yuni stand alone comment was hilarious … and even more hilarious to see the Yuni/WFB double play combo starting for KC yesterday.
This off-season will be even more riveting and to see how they continue to shape this ballclub
Awesome recap guys. I’m still doing mental back flips over how well-run this organization has become in such a short amount of time.
I honestly don’t know the last time a Mariner hit a walk-off homerun while trailing the opposition. So, Ryan Langerhans = Tom Tango endorsement? Thank you, thank you Tom Tango.
Interesting Aumont and Morrow coverage. Did they talk about their strategy, especially with regard to ignoring pitchers, in the draft?
Any discussions around Beltre and re-signing him? What to do with Hannrahan? Hints of what they’ll do with Bedard? What to do with Branyan over the summer?
One story they told was that before Jack interviewed for the job in Seattle, he sat down with Tony and together they came up with a detailed plan for Seattle based on the current roster and the ballpark. Jack said that Tony knew that if Jack got the job in Seattle that Tony would be coming along.
Regarding Langerhans, I think there was some regret over the timing of Saunders callup, but they decided that when everyone agreed that a player was ready for the Majors then it was time to make the move. The downside is that Langerhans went from being a platoon outfielder who played often to a 4th outfielder who will play infrequently.
I can’t express my excitement over what Jack Z has done, and from this recap, my excitement is shared. Thanks for the info, great work as always.
Thanks, Mike. One thing I’m loving about the current team is that they seem to be able to keep more than one objective in mind at the same time: winning now doesn’t have to be *totally* sacrificed to building for the future, and vice-versa. Which is the total opposite of the ‘hair on fire, win it all this year or die trying’ management approach of the previous regime.
As someone who attended the event, my sincere thanks to Dave and DMZ and the M’s and everyone else involved in setting it up. It was a really great opportunity to see and hear the front office first hand.
It’s still amazing to me that we now have a front office at the cutting edge, doing things the right way. It gives me a great deal of hope and optimism for the future.
Perhaps the most encouraging thing of all was that the reasons they gave for decisions I personally disagreed with (Morrow, Aumont) showed that they had given these matters great thought and that, while I might disagree with the results, the thought process showed that the front office approached these issues in the way I would like them to.
Other nuggets regarding Landerhans (all quotes are paraphrased as best as I remember). Dave said that before he posted his blog entry, he spoke to Tom Tango and said “the M’s really need to get Langerhans”, and Tom said “I know, Dave, I know”.
So it had gone from Tom to Tony to Jack, and Jack contacted the Nationals and the Nats agreed it sounded like a deal could happen, but then the Nats came back with a counter offer that would require more in return (guess they suddenly realized that Langerhans was actually good) but Jack was “hey, he’s in your minor league system with no future with you, but oh well” and walked away from the deal. Then a couple of days later the Nats changed their minds and we ended up with Langerhans.
Jack gave the standard response, that it’s a two way street and he has to want to come back, etc.
My impression, they are open to him coming back and would offer him something, and they think Beltre likes the team and the direction it is headed but that Beltre is not very thrilled with the left field fence. So who knows?
One day I hope to attend an event like this. Thanks goes out to everyone who made this possible.
Any talk about Johjima’s situation and the cathcer position in general?
I want to thank those that put this thing together. It was great.
Regarding the standing ovation: I was thinking of Gutierrez and Aardsma and Branyan, plus the Washburn and Yuni trades, when we were welcoming Jack and Tony to the room.
re Jack and Tony working together: Jack has a long background in scouting, but he always wants to use scouting and stats together. Sometimes, in an emergency, he might make a decision based soley on one or the other, but most of the time he used both and believes that they complement each other.
re SS: Jack has wanted to acquire Wilson for several years, Pittsburgh used to beat Milwaukee regularly because of Wilson. That may not be the best reason to go after a player, in my opinion, but Jack and Tony said that the market right now is such that there aren’t any shortstops available. Which is why KC was willing to take Yuni, the pickings out there at SS are slim.
Once again, Dave and Derek, thanks for your hard work in organizing this amazing time. And I don’t think anyone has pointed this out yet, but thanks to the Mariners for providing free unlimited snacks (popcorn, cracker jacks, water). It may not seem like much, but generous nonetheless.
Here’s a few things that I remember that people are asking about.
Beltre: Jack said…
1) Beltre hates hitting in Safeco
2) Likes Seattle.
We’ll see what happens there…
I think the one thing that I personally appreciated the most was the confidence, reasoning, and PERSONALITY of the decision making. Here are a few examples:
1) Aumont. Tony said straight up, he’s a reliever, thought he was from day 1. What are you going to say to that?
2) Morrow. Wasn’t ideal (and they admitted it) but they were just as frustrated as we were (correct, me if I am misquoting) as they never had previous discussions with Morrow when he made the hoopla of being a closer and then a starter.
3) The “humanity” of the process. What I mean is, I think a lot of us get way too caught up in the stats (not that they are meaningless), but each situation/decision is dynamic and changing. We may not like Jack Wilson but they expressed great confidence in him about the intangibles/outside the box score stuff he brings, and honestly, by the end of that answer… I love Jack Wilson, too.
4) The general philosophy of establishing a unique way to win, and branding it as Mariners baseball. Trust me, if you were there to hear them talk about it, it was very exciting.
The other thing that will stick is that whenever Guti was mentioned, the room erupted in applause.
Once again, thanks guys. Maybe next time we can have even more time slotted for the big guys because it was honestly one of the best days I’ve had in awhile. Even though we got pounded, chanting Fister was pretty enjoyable as well.
Tony said that when he got to his office in Arizona there was a picture of Mike Cameron on the wall. He said that he noticed that teams that acquire Mike Cameron do well, and when he leaves a team it does poorly.
Loved this description of how GMs work. Reminder of how it’s just not “we want this player, now what do we do to get him?”
He used the term “implode.” And I don’t think he was using it to exaggerate. He mentioned that Cincinatti went to the playoffs only once in the last ten years—and that was the year Cameron was on the team.
Dave asked Tony and Jack a question related to their motivation or something (I don’t recall the exact question) but Tony’s answer was they he keeps a copy of the Mariners roster from last year and looks at it from time to time.
One of the comments that got a lot of laughs from the room.
Jack was asked about the calls he was getting right before the trade deadline. He wouldn’t name names, but he did say that a few of the calls he got were just crazy, and he would ask Tony “hey look at this, can you believe it?” and they’d laugh but still be polite to the caller. Something like “we’ll give you our two utility infielders for Felix” crazy talk.
Did anyone ask Jack about the Yankees/Washburn rumors at all? I’d imagine he would stay mum on this one, but just curious.
Nope. Honestly, there wasn’t that much time. And I guess my only gripe is I wish we had more questions pre-conceived in the queue. Because there were some questions that I found very annoying and time-wasting.
The QA was good because you got an inside view of how Jack and Tony operated. And for the most part, the questions being asked were baseball questions, which is the way it should be. Honestly, who cares about Washburn and the New York media machine?
The only time I found their response lacking was to the question whoever asked about whether execs should do more to support athletes who might want to come out of the closet. Granted it was a very different type of question and didn’t feel like the kind of thing most of the stats/analysis-hungry audience was there for, but it was a valid question and Jack’s cookie-cutter “we should let people be who they are” answer was a letdown after all his honesty and straightforwardness (ha! straight!) previously.
Overall, I really enjoyed it.
Three things I wasn’t ecstatic about:
1. Jack Wilson. I love his defense and overall baseball ability, but I feel there are better long term solutions at shortstop available in baseball. Jack’s mentioning of what Wilson did against Milwaukee 2-3 years ago isn’t really the type of analysis I would like to see on a player.
2. Aumont should be given the chance to start. No, he should have been held back in Peoria from the start to “re-build” him as a pitcher. If you’ve got that kind of body, with that kind of an arm, there’s no reason not to try to make the most valuable thing possible out of it – front-line starter. I do not believe that there are 4-5 elite closers in baseball, I believe that those closers change every few years and the value in grooming any player to be one is marginal. Bullpen, for an elite prospect, should be a last case resort, not a planned development. What Tony saw from a raw 17 year old Canadian kid with limited coaching and competition should not have significant weight in the discussion on Aumont’s future.
3. Morrow. The Morrow situation showed a bit of a weakness in this front-office. Jack should understand that he is the boss. What Morrow “feels like” doing this week or that should have no bearing on the front office’s vision of his development arc. If they felt that he should be a starter, they should not have let him start as a reliever, no matter the depth in our relief corps. Relievers, even closers, are a dime a dozen, good starters are not.
PS: I’m a little sleep deprived, apologies if something here doesn’t make sense, I don’t have the focus to proof-read.
The question was “defining moment”. Bit early for that (9 months?) but the “last year’s roster answer was hilarious.
Just to add a tiny bit on the Morrow thing – they were quite clear that Morrow went to the press on his own with all the stories. They seemed a bit more philospohical about it than I would have been, and ended up making the best of a bad situation. All of the injuries and other pitcher suckitude factored into the decisions, too.
Jack and Tony are obviously two sharp guys who love what they do and work well together. I liked the South Jersey/Philly/PA connection, too, as I used to live there.
So, Ryan Langerhans = Tom Tango endorsement? Thank you, thank you Tom Tango.
As Dave indicated, Tango was on Langerhans before Dave was on Langerhans.
My favorite moment was, in discussing ludicrous trade proposals, Jack said he hoped that they hadn’t made any themselves. Dave responded something to the effect of “no offense intended” but you did make an offer like that, and the Royals said yes.
Realistically, what could he have said? That was probably the least expected question, and much akin to “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”.
Are there any incidents of gay-bashing in the clubhouse we don’t know about that he should have addressed? Any gay baseball players he has avoided trading for?
Honestly, it will take some brave soul to come out of the closet to advance the situation – you can judge the owners, GMs, front offices and players on how they respond to that.
Another big laugh on this, Jack said “Branyan… Sexson”.
Any mention of discussing a Felix extension?
I just hope the M’s make it to a World Series before Ichiro retires or goes somewhere else.
davep: Then he could easily have responded that he didn’t think it was a situation for executives to handle, that he would want a situation before him so that he could choose the right way of handling it. Instead it felt like he was like “uhhhh uh oh, must give lip service to diversity here, even though I have never in my life considered this topic.”
I hope this comment is entirely your opinion because that’s a pretty unfair comment to make. In my opinion, he gave a good answer especially in line with how he had been discussing things all night. From what I remember, he specifically said he wants “good people.” As token as that may sound, I think the responses leading up to that question were all indicative of the type of GM Jack is and what he values, all controversial issues aside.
No Felix discussion, and I’m pretty sure if asked, it would be nothing added to what’s already out there.
Who? And would they take more than $8.2M for a season and a half and/or more than the M’s gave up for him (after adjusting for the Snell component).
JJ Hardy would have been more expensive in both trade pieces and salary. Younger players who are better than Wilson would be even more expensive trade-wise.
The 2010 SS Free Agent market is barren outside of Miguel Tejada. Given that he’s a big bat, poor defensive SS, he’s not what the M’s are targeting right now.
There aren’t cheaper/better options out there for the M’s to currently pursue.
I got the “we’d pick the best player possible for the team regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, etc.” vibe from his response. It seemed like his response was more of a “it isn’t something we’ve discussed because it wouldn’t factor into our decision making” rather than a outright dismissal of the issue.
Can we talk about baseball, please? To my knowledge, nobody in the Mariners system is homosexual. And even if they were, who cares? A ballplayer is a ballplayer. If Albert Pujols comes out of the closet tomorrow, I’ll still think he’s the tied for the greatest thing in baseball with Ichiro. And if Carlos Silva comes out, I’ll despise his pitching just as much as I did the day before, no more, no less. We live in a very liberal area, and I think that most Mariners fans feel the same way I do on this one. Live and let live.
Luc: We *are* talking about baseball. Because you see this particular situation as cut-and-dried does not mean that it actually IS. And while you may be right about most Mariners fans, we all know that fan beliefs are very different from ballplayer and front office beliefs.
Oscar: How on earth could “it felt like…” be anything other than my opinion? Do I really need to precede my statements with “Others may differ, but I personally felt as if…” for complete clarity?
CMC: I hope that your reading is more accurate than mine. :>
We’re not talking about baseball as a game. This is a discussion about the culture in baseball. If you have any ideas on how Jack as a GM can change how teammates view other teammates I’d love to hear it. That would be completely up to the people in the clubhouse, not the owners box. Look, I don’t think the guy who asked the question at the event was necessarily creating an issue out of thin air. Maybe it is an issue and it’s simply fallen on deaf ears.
The point I’m making is that the question was posed to the wrong person, not to mention pre-emptively so. Can’t we table such a sensitive subject until it actually becomes an issue? At which point we can re-engage and inevitably conclude that the country is split down the middle on this issue and there’s a 99.9% chance that that will never change.
Back to baseball the game. Felix is awesome. Nothin’ but love for ya Lauren. Sincerely.
Regarding the SS debate, I think CMC_Stags is on target here. SS are in short supply, and the M’s were in really desperate need of one. They were through with Yuni, Cedeno was only contributing on one half of the ledger, and the farm system had nothing for the next few years. Failing to get some kind of upgrade at SS would have been a disaster.
In light of that, consider that even if the M’s were willing to pay more for Hardy or Brignac, there’s zero guarantee they could have gotten either one. Possibly (likely, given their need) they’d been making inquiries about both of those guys, but obviously nothing had happened by the time the deadline got near (and note that neither guy ended up being traded, even when lots of teams could have used a SS). Then along comes the Wilson deal. Maybe it’s not their first choice, maybe it’s their third choice, but the gap between Hardy/Brignac and Wilson is a lot smaller than the gap between Wilson and whatever Option #4 might have been. So, do you pass on Wilson in order to gamble on getting a modest upgrade at the risk of ending up with a replacement level SS starting 162 games for you next year? Or do you make the deal and be happy that you plugged a huge, gaping hole in your organization?
I wasn’t there, so get your salt grains ready…..
If this was the intent, as well meaning as it sounds, it really isn’t enough. Sure one can “pick the best player regardless,” but if that person’s teammates or coaches are uncomfortable with gay people, the athlete might be uncomfortable, and it can have a negative impact on his performance. So if the question is “What can you do to build a more accepting environment… ,” that type of answer is pretty weak.
Yes, I was talking primarily of Brignac. And if the price for him was marginally higher than for Wilson, without the benefit of getting a high-reward pitcher like Snell back, I would have been fine with that. That would have given us a 6-year SS versus a 2-3 year SS at half the price, allowing us to free up money for 2nd, 3rd and the rotation. All things considered, I’m not 100% against the Wilson trade, I simply feel that the value for Wilson was set 2 years ago, while the trade was 2 weeks ago. We overpaid slightly for a good enough player.It’s not a horrible trade, and it does improve the ball club, I just feel that we could’ve done better and more at the deadline. But if Jack says those guys weren’t available at a reasonable price, and I think he hinted at that, I’m fine with it.
Thank you again, everyone, for organizing another one of these. In hindsight, sure wish it had been Sunday’s game instead of Saturday’s, but what can you do? The yelling of Fister’s name during the 9th inning was possibly the most hilarious time I’ve had at a game in a while.
Regarding Wilson, I haven’t been too impressed with his play in the field so far. He’s made a few good plays, but he also has made some mistakes including throwing to the wrong base.
I’m perfectly happy to give the deal the benefit of the doubt, though. What I’ve seen so far is both a small sample size, as well as a player getting used to a new team. It is the only trade Jack has made that really could be questioned (Dave came out against it) but their explanation of their thinking made sense.
Wait wait wait…Lauren…look at what you said:
The answer that would have been acceptable to you is much more ambiguous than the answer he gave. “I would want to see a situation in front of me” is essentially saying “I reserve the right to not comment on this until it happens, which it probably won’t”.
You were there to talk baseball. Whether or not someone is gay is not part of baseball. My guess is that Jack Z. was caught off guard by such a question.
Oh, he clearly was caught off guard–and they’re often questions that are good to ask. Didn’t get a really good answer this time, but didn’t get a bad one. And I didn’t have a problem with the question being asked.
Oh, he clearly was caught off guard–and they’re often questions that are good to ask. Didn’t get a really good answer this time, but didn’t get a bad one. And I didn’t have a problem with the question being asked.
Dylan: I don’t want to clog up the whole thread with an issue that is of more importance to me than to a lot of others, it seems, but one brief reply–whether or not a BASEBALL PLAYER is gay and how he is accepted is unquestionably part of baseball. It may not be the part of baseball you’re interested in, but “the culture of baseball,” as Luc called it above, IS part of baseball. Minorities being accepted on major league teams was a huge part of the topic called “baseball.” That’s why, y’know, there’s a Negro Leagues museum, rightful celebration of Jackie Robinson, et cetera.
As to an “acceptable” answer, I’m not saying that the example I gave is what I would want to hear. I’m just saying that it would have felt more honest to me than what he actually said, which as tgf said did not really answer the question at hand.
I enjoyed that immensely too. For those who weren’t there, Jack and Tony were asked for their “wow” moment, or their defining moment of the season. Part of Tony’s answer was that he gets that feeling whenever he sees the list of the 2008 Mariners 40 man roster as it stood when they took over. Ouch!
You forgot to mention Jack’s comment that he and Tony spent three weeks preparing for that interview for the GM job. I thought that was extremely impressive.
These guys are focused, driven, and know what they’re doing. This franchise is finally in excellent hands.
I’m less impressed about the amount of work; I’m more impressed about the QUALITY of work.
Anybody at this level is gonna work their butt off (well, nowadays, at least). But the process, the strategy and the deductive insights are what matters, and the dynamic duo were displaying all that and more on Saturday.
One comment Jack made regarding Wilson and Snell that hasn’t been mentioned here is that they don’t owe them a penny for this half a year of service, so the 2010 salary can be considered the cost for 2010 and this portion of 2009. To me, this makes it a better deal than it seemed on the surface, and if Jack can get Wilson to sign for something closer to his value then it seems like a fine choice to me. If we can get a good to great defensive infield to go with our current outfield, it won’t matter what a pitcher’s tendencies are, they’ll all look better.
Really? You’re comparing slavery and segregation to some testosterone-driven athletes being uncomfortable in a clubhouse with a homosexual? I think that’s a gross overstatement. The negro leagues were full of major league caliber players for 50 years before Jackie Robinson broke the barrier. There is no such league for gays. The comparison is ludicrous at best.
Wish I could have been there. Unfortunately, because of my job, I’ve had to move to the heart of enemy territory: Arlington, TX. Fortunately I can still see the M’s play live several times a year and watch them on TV via the MLB package.
The day after the Jack Wilson trade I heard an interview with Jack Z on the MLB network and he talked about watching Wilson play for years against the Brewers. It was pretty obvious that he absolutely loved the guy so it’s no surprise at all to me that Wilson is going to be our SS for the next few years.
Kudos to Jack Z and his staff for turning this ship around and I can’t wait to see what they have planned for the coming offseason.
Okay, getting into an argument about whether the history of African-Americans is comparable to gay rights really is out of scope, and it’s an illustration of why we avoid topics relating to politics or religion.
My takeaways:
Dave and Derek: Derek writes many words, but hates talking. Dave isn’t shy with a mic in his hand.
The LL guys: Should have brought chairs.
Tony’s 1-900 number: Hilarious.
The awkward moment: Seriously, what on earth did you expect him to say?
Our backyard: Jack’s story about Tony not wanting to lose a prospect from “his backyard” in Jersey, and Jack telling him “Look out the window. This is your backyard now.” — I love these guys. They WANT to be here, and want to build something other teams will try to duplicate. I’m trilled about that.
Not satisfied yet: Jack appreciated the standing ovations, but he was very clear in that they are nowhere close to done, and they want zero recognition until there’s a parade.
OT and After: Running longer than advertised, and staying to shake hands and talk to people was pretty cool.
Regarding the gay question. Yes, Jack’s answer was basically a long-winded non-committal, with something in there about following laws or something. Sure, ideally he would have said something along the lines of: “If a member of our organization, whether in the majors or the minors were to come out openly about being gay, he would have the full support of the front office in any challenges that might cause. It is time for MLB and other professional leagues to overcome this artificial barrier that should not exist in the 21st century.” Or something a bit more eloquent.
At the same time, you have to consider the demographics of major league baseball. With a lot of devout christians, especially the large number of latin american catholics in baseball, I think that this would be a very unpopular issue in many major league clubhouses.
Honestly, when places like California and New York can’t pass gay marriage laws, can you expect MLB to have anything but a non-committal response to this issue?
Regarding Tui, Robbbb, I asked the question and the impression I got was that they were very non-committal regarding his future. Because of the injury they just didn’t know yet what they had in Tui, including whether his future was at 3rd base. Of course, if his future is not at 3rd base, then one is very hard pressed to see a major role going forward for Tui in a Mariner uniform.
I mainly asked the question because another blog reported recently that the M’s FO was salivating over Tui’s upside and future. But that is definitely not the case here. Lips stayed pretty dry, I’d say.
I got the impression that Jack was mildly embarrassed by the standing ovation we gave them when they walked into the room.
This is what Dave said about the Wilson trade at the time:
Given the amount of money the Pirates threw in I think it would be interesting to hear his take now. Also, maybe it’s just me, but I love Wilson so far.
Thanks for posting the recap guys.
Don’t remember who said “as far as I know there are no gay players on the Mariners” – this is exactly the point. As far as we KNOW, there are no gay players in BASEBALL. But this obviously isn’t the case. Based on the rest of the U.S. population, probably about 10% of the players in baseball are gay, along with 10% of baseball managers, coaches, executives, and fans.
If, given how many major and minor league players there are in a sport, NOBODY has EVER been comfortable with being openly homosexual, then there is clearly a high level of institutional heterosexism in the game.
And we don’t even need this kind of analysis as evidence – do you remember when that Japanese minor league player for the Indians had to apologize to the media and the entire clubhouse for having been in a homosexual pornography video YEARS before? Sure, there were some players who said “live and let live,” but come on – live and let live is not exactly a ringing endorsement – it still implies disapproval – and it certainly would be little comfort against the SEVERAL all-star players who publicly stated that they wouldn’t want to play with that guy. Who wasn’t even, himself, gay! What can we learn from this? That baseball’s attitude toward homosexuality is at about the same level as the military’s – anything that can even be construed as a homosexual ACT is unacceptable.
No – this is not the SAME as slavery. It is an example of terrible oppression in the game that we all love. I was very happy to hear Jack Z say a LITTLE bit more than just “we’re looking for good baseball players, period” and of course nobody would have expected him to say more. But this, again, just speaks to the fact that heterosexism is a major problem with the game today.
I loved the event – was very happy to be there. One reason why I loved it, however, was how much was said about thinking outside the box, moving forward in the most competitive and ethical manner possible, etc. I’d love to see that principle applied to sexual equality.
Honestly, when places like California and New York can’t pass gay marriage laws, can you expect MLB to have anything but a non-committal response to this issue?
…………………………
Washington State just passed an “everything but marriage law.” Several states have passed or are considering passing marriage laws. One of them is Iowa – FIELD OF DREAMS! California actually has an “everything but marriage” law similar to Washington state. The President of The United States supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
And, baseball is supposed to be a LEADER in civil rights. This is the line we’re fed by Bud Selig, at least – it’d be nice to see it actually happen.
What I remember most about the question about gays was the initial reaction on Jack’s face, which was “this is one I haven’t had to answer before, and I haven’t thought it through so I don’t have a prepared answer, and boy, this is one tough audience.” He did answer with platitudes, but the first platitude was about breaking prior barriers in baseball.
I can’t speak for Jack about what he’d say if it were asked again, but I am fairly certain he will think about it further and have a more specific answer (perhaps having discussed it with the team’s lawyers, since Washington and Seattle have laws against workplace discrimination that include sexual orientation) prepared.
Regarding the SS debate:
If we learned anything from being at the QA, we know that Jack and Tony looked at all possibilities at upgrading the position. I feel that it is being implied here that we didn’t do enough to upgrade the position, but c’mon really guys?
After hearing these two talk, is there really doubt that they didn’t do their due diligence when it came to deciding this situation? Really?
It’s pretty obvious that Jack and Tony are better than any of us at making decisions, and from what we know now, to think they didn’t do enough to upgrade is silly.
Jack spoke on this alot at the QA. It’s not just about what you want, but what is available and for how much. I completely trust Jack and Tony to decide that if say Hardy or Brignac was available, the cost was not right for this team.
This is where the human element comes in that they both touched on. Rosterbation aside, what you may think could’ve nabbed us Hardy or Brignac that may have “marginally” cost more than what we gave up for Wilson, probably wasn’t a reality. And Jack and Tony decided to make an acquisition now vs. later. As someone mentioned before, the free agent crop for SS is terrible.
Jack not only wants to improve the ball club for the long term, but he wants to be competitive now. He emphasized that. Regardless of how you feel about Jack Wilson, he improves the ball club. How much so and whether it was worth it is something you can decide. But to think we could’ve got something better is a pipe dream at this point. If there was a better deal out there to make, I believe Jack and Tony would’ve done it.
Yeah, they were overwhelmed. Or, when he started a sentence, got to “Franklin Gutierrez,” and was interupted by a roaring round of applause.
He couldn’t hold the straight face during that.
What I remember most about the question about gays was the initial reaction on Jack’s face, which was “this is one I haven’t had to answer before, and I haven’t thought it through so I don’t have a prepared answer, and boy, this is one tough audience.â€
———————————————
This is how I read it too.
No no no. This is blindly accepting statistics as fact without viewing them in the right context. 10 percent of the US population is supposed to be gay. That absolutely does not mean 10 percent of MLB players are gay. It could be .01% and it could be 95% but I would be willing to bet it’s a lot closer to the .01%
Also, was there any discussion about Felix and an extension? That would have been my only question if I had been lucky enough to attend.
I have no problem with the USS Mariner getting that reputation.
I would be willing to bet it’s a lot closer to the .01%
————-
Well, I said probably – I certainly don’t KNOW any more than you do. Statements by the very few gay players and baseball people who have come out (after playing, and these include Billy Beane) suggest that there are A LOT of gay players. See also Rob Neyer, Jim Caple, and Jeff Pearleman.
You think it is closer to .01%, why?
Okay, I’m also declaring debates over the percentage of the population that is gay to be beyond the scope of this discussion.
For the record, it was Billy Bean, not Billy Beane, the GM of the A’s.
One of our bloggers (don’t recall which one) before Jack and Tony arrived said that it would be a tough decision. Since some team like the Red Sox or Yankees will offer Felix big money and a many year deal when he hits free agency, it will be a really tough decision on what to do. Long term contracts with pitchers are usually a bad idea but maybe Felix is the exception.
And someone said this is something we are glad that we don’t have to decide.
I meant no discussion with JackZ about Felix. I believe Derek fielded most of the question (Dave initially answered). And it wasn’t anything new. All of this has been said before.
I agree. The Internet’s a big place – I bet somewhere, right now, there’s a site where people are discussing politics. In my imagination, there’s a political blog where a moderator just posted the following to a Prop 8 thread:
Just a brief comment–I did not equate African-American history with gay rights. I choose not to try to weigh civil rights issues and decide somehow which is more worthy.
I just said that this discussion is part of “baseball” just as once the discussion of racial and ethnic minorities and their role was part of “baseball.” And now that the decision is long since made that ethnic minorities should be equal participants in the major leagues, the decision is (rightfully, in my opinion) celebrated as part of “baseball.”
JMH: Ha. Awesome.
Yeah – I was sitting up close to the front, and I’d agree with that reaction.
And, given that… I’d say he gave a decent answer. Sure, it would have been great if he had given Willmore2000′s “he would have the full support of the front office . . . time for MLB and other professional leagues to overcome this artificial barrier†answer. But, next time someone asks the question, maybe that’s what we’ll get.
I think there are some qualitative differences, also, between desegregation and gay rights. Promoting Jackie Robinson to the Dodgers was a decision that had to be made by a front office; Robinson’s excellence and his race were obvious to all.
By comparison, the role of a front office on gay rights has to, necessarily, be different, as they’re not going to out players. It would be more of establishing an environment that was open and accepting, and waiting for a player to feel comfortable enough in that environment to come out. Still takes leadership, within the “testosterone driven” sports world, but it’s just qualitatively different.
Just so you know, Lauren, my comment wasn’t directed at you specifically, I was speaking to the room as it were. I appreciate that you’ve tried to keep things in a baseball context, it’s just that the conversation was moving very quickly to tangents that needed heading off. None of us is necessarily to blame for it being a touchy subject.
Route21: Yeah, that’s one of the potential responses I would have found straightforward and interesting–the idea that, as you say, it was obvious who was a minority and their baseball talents were already being exhibited. It’s a clearer decision to make, in that respect.
Speaking of Billy Beane-with-an-e, here’s an intriguing notion–say there are some current and up-and-coming players who are gay. Perhaps a clubhouse that went out of its way to make a statement about acceptance (and lived up to that credo) would have an advantage in attracting the skilled players among that group. It could be a corollary to Beane’s theory of taking advantage of undervalued assets. Heh.
Did anyone ask about Felix and an extension?
Also, w/r/t our relative speaking — I know from past events when to get out of Dave when he’s ON FIRE!!! which he’s done for the last three events or so. And those questions were generally right down Dave’s alley.
It’s all that media experience….
DMZ: I thought we were moving ON from the gay topic, yet here you are with your “get out of Dave” and “right down Dave’s alley.” Trroublemaker!!
Jack was actually talking about Tom McNarama (aka Mac) at that point
Speaking of speaking – the friend I took, who is nothing more than a casual fan and wouldn’t know the USS Mariner from the USS Nimitz, did mention how hard it was to understand what “the bloggers” were saying. If you guys are going to end up in more public speaking roles (radio, etc.) it might pay to work on it…
Jack and Tony were much easier to understand – slower dleivery and better enunciation (despite the Joizy/Philly accents…)
Hee hee hee hee…..
We’ve been working on it for ages, and will continue to do so.
You just have to turn up the speed on your ears when Dave is speaking.
I don’t know, I was working the door for pretty much the whole time and only had trouble understanding Derek once, and that’s mostly just because he’s got the type of voice that microphones don’t pick up particularly well.
Wow, I didn’t realize there was such a large contingent of fans that are down on Jack Wilson. I agree with Oscar; given the FO’s track record, shouldn’t we assume that the price for Hardy or Brignac would have been even steeper than what we paid for Wilson? I’d be interested to hear more on this angle from Dave; specifically if he’s accounting for the scarcity of shortstops when he says we overpaid (I’m sure he is), and how he would have preferred the position to be filled.
While Wilson’s defense seems to be held in universally high regard, I was surprised the other day to see him high atop the UZR rankings for SS this season, and 2nd only to Hardy in UZR/150 over the last 3 years. It appears we have one of the two best fielding shortstops in baseball. So we’ve got that going for us, which is nice. I would’ve expected this nugget to have been heralded more on USSM, or is he expected to decline?
Not of Jack and Tony. I only realized that afterwards, and though wow, probalby the biggest question for all the MLB this offseason and none of us idjits asked it. Which is why we’re not sports reporters, I guess.
On the other hand, as someone said, it probably wouldn’t have added much. Still, it might have been informative to see just what route* they took to the obvious “we’ll sign him if we can, don’t know if it’ll happen” answer.
* and whether angry bees chased them there
I just want to point out that it was Derek who actually had to tell them how close it was to game time. These were gentlemen who enjoy talking baseball to rabid baseball fans. I imagine if you found them at a bar after the game, they’d chat until closing time.
Without denigrating our under-21 fans (though with denigrating our too strict liquor laws), we should do this!
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is Z wanted to make it very clear they did NOT entertain a three-way deal at the deadline (though I can’t recall if he went into the names or teams involved, we know what he was talking about).
And, as mentioned, I enjoyed how they kept saying “nothing against Yuni” in one breath, and slyly slam him in the next.
- Regarding giving Felix a “market rate” contract. Maybe this bit of confusion on my part can cleared up. Are all the people saying that we can’t sign Felix saying it because we:
A) Can’t afford giving him a “market rate” contract
B) Don’t consider it a smart move to give him a “market rate” contract.
I can live with B…but I guess it seems strange that so many people are willing to say that we can’t affor Felix when we are spending $20 million dollars on a RF. Sure seems like we have the dough if the player deserves it.
Don’t know if that type of philosophical question has been addressed during any of these meet ups. But, I’d love the clarification.
On Mike Cameron: I too have had the impression that the team he joins are immediately better, and the teams he leaves are worse. This time I checked it out. And it’s absolutely true. Mike Cameron has switched teams five times; four out of five the team left got worse, and five out of five the team joined got better.
1998-1999
Chicago White Sox
80 75
Cincinnati Reds
77 96
1999-2000
Cincinnati Reds
96 85
Seattle Mariners
79 91
2003-2004
Seattle Mariners
93 63
New York Mets
66 71
2005-2006
New York Mets
85 97
San Diego Padres
82 88
2007-2008
San Diego Padres
89 63
Milwaukee Brewers
83 90
teams left: 88.6 to 76.6
teams joined: 77.4 to 87.2
Mike Cameron has switched teams five times; four out of five the team left got worse, and five out of five the team joined got better.
And the Mets only got away with it because they had brought in Carlos Beltran. Cameron was shifted over to right for his second Mets season, plus it was cut short anyway when the two of them collided on a horrific play almost exactly four years ago.
Regarding giving Felix a “market rate†contract. Maybe this bit of confusion on my part can
It’s B), sort of. The per-year figure isn’t really the problem so much as the years and the fact that pitchers are fragile. The vast majority of multi-year, big dollar contracts for pitchers turn out very badly for the team. And it’s not just the obviously bad moves like the M’s of prior years, but all of them.
Think of how you feel if you see Rick Griffen sprint out to the mound and start looking at Felix’ elbow. Now image the M’s just signed him to a 8/200 deal… Or imagine he reverts back to “establishing the fastball” and getting shelled the first two innings. Carlos Silva’s contract is a boat anchor. Imagine dragging around something twice as big for twice as long. That’s the downside.
The upside is watching a Hall of Fame pitcher work through his best years. Which is what makes it such a tough call.
D’oh. Doesn’t make the story less awesome, though.
Also, I wish I knew who you people were when I saw you. Who was it that said something to me about my jersey and my comment on a previous quote? You didn’t introduce yourself, and I forgot to ask.
Reading this on Geoff Baker’s blog reminded me of something Jack Z. went out of his way to tell us, and suggests that he is refuting Geoff’s reporting. Geoff writes:
I remember Jack stating emphatically that there were no 3 way trade discussions going on AT ALL. So I think Geoff is wrong here, that the story has not been refuted. Jack refuted it Saturday night.
I wouldn’t say Baker is wrong in reporting that it was proposed, but it wasn’t proposed by the Mariners, and based on Zduriencik’s comments it would appear that the Mariners promptly turned it down. His words were “did not entertain”, which I would take to mean whatever anybody else suggested, the front office never actively contemplated making such a deal.
I posted the following on Geoff’s blog this morning after reading that.
Obviously, I don’t expect a direct response to that anytime soon.
Jack is waiting for Hanley Ramirez to become a free agent to fill the shortstop position, defense be damned (wishful thinking).
And if casual fans could see Betancourt’s defensive flaws, they certainly should recognize Wilson’s prowess. I have already been blown away by a few plays by Wilson; not because they were flashy, but because I forgot what a shortstop’s range should look like.
Lots of good comments here, so aside for many thanks to Dave and Derek and the Ms — best $25 baseball ticket I’ve ever bought — a question and a comment:
When Tony made his Mike Cameron comment, he also noted that Cameron won’t be going to the Hall of Fame, but if there were a Hall of the Very Good, it’d have Mike and … I couldn’t hear the name of the other player he said, I think it was Dwight Evans? One of my favorite and IMO underrated players, didn’t hit a ton of homers but did hit doubles and draw walks and play defense, things which are too often underrated compared to homers and RBIs.
The one area where I thought Jack Z could’ve handled things better: when that one questioner tried (and unfortunately succeeded) in bypassing Dave and his microphone by simply shouting out his question. Which turned out to be a really stupid “stats vs boots on the ground” question — I say stupid because Jack Z had already answered that question, repeatedly using the word “blend”. So why ask a question that’s already been answered? I thought Jack Z should’ve ignored the shouted question and asked Dave to let the legitimate questioner continue with his question.
Thankfully that was the only example of bad behavior, and a dumb question. I think the gay question caught not just Jack Z but most of us off-guard, not much that Jack Z could’ve done much more to handle that question but it’s one of those questions which stun you momentarily (regardless of whether you’re Jack Z or just in the audience) and then make you realize: yeah, the questioner has a point there.
Q13 asks the question we didn’t and gets the answer: nothing so far.
Great event. Thanks for organizing this. I had a couple of thoughts. (1) I went to a kinda similar event a few years back, with an MBA-type crowd rubbing elbows with Bob Melvin and HowChuck. Even though the season hadn’t even begun, I had this sinking feeling of “deer in the headlights” and that these guys really don’t have much of a plan. I got a completely different vibe with Jack and Tony, and if Wak were there I’m sure it would feel even stronger. (2) Lots of people have mentioned Jack’s “blend” comment. For me, it really hit the nail on the head when Z was describing how a scout will see maybe 5 games and develop an opinion on a player, and a stats guy will look at the numbers and see something entirely different. Jack put the 2 sides together by talking about how the different views almost by necessity requiring a blended view to make successful roster decisions. He had me sold on his philosophy with his explanation, although of course I’ve approved of his body of work to date.
(3) In talking about the Morrow situation, I felt like if you read between the lines that the team was paddling up s*** creek with the closer role, and that they were scrambling big-time to come up with a credible approach. Z obviously wanted to trade Putz at the top of his value, and last year’s team really didn’t have a healthy closer successor in place so they were basically ad-libbing it (can’t solve every problem right away). In short, I think it was a very diplomatic way of saying that they had to clean up one more mess from the end of year 2008 roster.
It sounds like a splendid time was had by all. I am glad that more than a few very important questions were answered with honesty and good humor. I really love Mariners management and I never thought I would say that in my lifetime.
I think that the difficult question about sexual orientation was legitimate. I think that the answer was too.
My first Mariners game was in the Kingdome against the White Sox. Both Ken Griffey and Junior were in the lineup. Seeing two generations of African-Americans on the field was something beautiful that was and still remains hard to put into words. The game had come a long way since Jackie Robinson.
The signings of Ichiro Suzuki and Kazuhiro Sasaki were also ground-breaking. Our nations fought a bitter conflict that left both sides scarred and led to decades of post-war bigotry in the region. Mariners baseball once again proved that it could move beyond the ugliness of the past through the beauty of the game.
In 1942, Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Roosevelt. All around the region, Japanese-Americans were rounded up and sent to the desert. Leland Wakamatsu was born in the interment camp at Tule Lake. Today, his son Don is in the discussion for AL manager of the year. Once again, Mariners baseball transcends history.
A gay player might be playing today. Or, he may have already worn the uniform in the past. This club is a good family. Good families are not going to automatically turn on a brother for his gayness or out him to the public. I think that until there is evidence of clubhouse bigotry or animosity toward a homosexual teammate, we should not assume that a problem exists.
I too will add my two cents to how awesome that event was last Saturday. I brought my dad (Father’s Day gift) and he was not only impressed with Zduriencik and Blengino; not only was he impressed with the USSM guys’ comments and answers pre Jack & Tony but with the quality of the audience’s questions throughout as well. I quote my dad: “Even the gay question was well put”.
I personally walked out of there convinced that the team is in good hands. I haven’t felt that in, well, ever and it’s a pretty frakin’ cool feeling.
For those that care, I was the guy in the Jackie Robinson jersey. I kinda felt out of place, but when choosing between my beat-up old M’s jersey or #42, Jackie wins.
Jimmie
That was me. I really enjoyed this event, going to the game was just extra as far as I was concerned. We are in very good hands.
One other thing: Graham’s Cedeno jersey was hilarious.
Sorry, but I’m giggling like a fool….going over some of the posts from earlier this year and how they thought the team would do.
Heh.
Ah, but it was very handsome.
It was very awesome, I agree, but looking back, I am left feeling the LL guys were underutilized. If the plan was for them to stand around looking lost, job well done, but wasn’t there something more that could have been done?
For the benefit of the (many) relative newcomers and/or friends of the old hands, it would have been nice to have a bit more introduction of the bloggers – esp the LL guys, who I wouldn’t know from Adam (in fact, if I didn’t know Dave and Derek from way back I wouldn’t have recognized them, either.)
Thanks! I’m fond of it too. The Clement jersey Matthew was wearing was also mine.
Nobody answered what was said about the catcher position.
I know full well what Tony said in May at the SABR meeting when I asked, and am just wondering if it’s still consistent…
Dave helped things by wearing a Cameron jersey. (Was it a Mike Cameron jersey? I don’t remember his number.)
Yes, Mike Cameron wore #44.