Yeah, because DePo worked out so badly, trading the heart, soul, and syringe of the Dodgers.

I've read this guy before, and he's an even bigger blowhard than what he accuses U.S.S. Mariner of being. Here's his brilliant insight into the 2008 AL West race:

The 2008 Angels lost two great pitchers — but they know how to win. The 2008 Mariners gained two great pitchers (in view of Felix' ascendance) — but they know only how to lose.

Did you hear that?

He's an apologist for the Mariners' front offices' every stupid move.

1. Has TWO (2) great starting pitchers

Seriously, let's take a look at the 2008 Mariners: there's exactly one starting pitcher with an ERA+ over 100. That would be Felix Hernandez, and who, again?

2. Has a Hall of Fame center fielder

About the only thing in here that comes within the area code of reasonable, though Ichiro's HoF case is a different argument and one for another day.

3. Has a superstar closer

An 88 ERA+ is likely to be a sign, at his age, that his 2006-7 seasons were late career outliers. He appeared to be recovering from an early season slump until his blown save against the Yankees on Sunday.

4. Has, in essence, quality ML veterans at every field position

The Mariners by OPS+ have better-than-average starters at three positions: left field, center field, and third base. Everyone else is much worse than major league average.

5. Has $115MM in players with few Darren Dreiforts, Chan Ho Parks or Albert Belles

The measure of success is now having "few" Darren Dreiforts? Cutting Horacio Ramirez while eating his 2008 salary counts for something, true, and I suppose the front office deserves some credit for avoiding the trap of handing out long-term deals to dubious free agents, but that's an awfully low bar. Outside of Mike Hampton, arguably Carlos Delgado, Juan Pierre, and Gary Matthews, Jr., what contracts are out there in the majors that really remotely compare to these? GMs are visibly getting smarter; it's clear that Bavasi isn't keeping up.

6. Is on pace to lose 105 games

Something we can agree on.

so if someone vehemently disagrees with bavasi, he can't behave respectfully when meeting in person?

“Gimme a shot at it” huffs your local Paul DePodesta type. Um, yeah. Just hope it never comes to that. :- )

what if the local paul depodesta type was actually paul depodesta?

Bloggers do not have information, or roster construction knowledge, superior to those of ML organizations. To assume that we do is incredibly naive.

“Gimme a shot at it” huffs your local Paul DePodesta type. Um, yeah. Just hope it never comes to that. :- )

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't DePodesta fall on the same side as Bavasi with respect to the
Ml Organization/Blogger divide???

Any way, I think the issue is not whether a blogger has access to more or less information that Bavasi, the blogger almost certainly has ACCESS to LESS, the real key is how you [process that information and what you do with it.

This particular author doesn't think roster construction is a problem, because he looks at the M's roster and it LOOKS like a good roster, and they won last year, and they added a star pitcher and now they're losing- because of a culture of losing (whereas the Angels have a culture of winning)

News flash- all the bloggers you are attacking pretty much predicted that the Angels would outplay the Ms heading into this season, and it had nothing to do with "knowing how to win"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't DePodesta fall on the same side as Bavasi with respect to the
Ml Organization/Blogger divide???

what divide? depodesta works for a mlb organization and now writes his own blog, so maybe he falls on both sides...

Merely sneering, "Learn how to build a team" is not an intelligent response to Bavasi's intelligent comment. (We're not lambasting one person; we're responding to the usual consensus that, presumably, exists on other sites.)

what a joke, you can't quote an individual from another site, and then paraphrase it again a few paragraphs later and say you're not lambasting one person but responding to an opinion that "presumably" exists on other sites.

Notice first of all, that this kind of cyber-bravado-from-behind-the-monitor vanishes in a puff of smoke as soon as you, I or Local Blogger are in the same room together. With Mr. Bavasi. ... why not match your cyber persona a little more to the one you'd manifest in the real world?

(read: I would never dream of being confrontational in person for fear of a 50-year-old man getting angry and raising his voice at me; assuming other people are equally large pansies helps me live with myself)

Which KJR host is writing this blog?

Has a superstar closer

I can't tell you how many "Putz" jerseys I see everyday. And how many supermodels has he dated? Ten? Twelve? I lose count. You can't turn on your TV without seeing another J.J. commercial. There are few superstars bigger than J.J. Putz.

4. Has, in essence, quality ML veterans at every field position

Apparently in the same sense that the Poles had quality, WWI veterans at every defensive position in 1939.

"so if someone vehemently disagrees with bavasi, he can't behave respectfully when meeting in person?"

You just KNOW that if some blogger actually called Bavasi out during a meatspace meet-and-greet, this Detecto guy would just start going on and on about how rude and angry and shrill most anti-M bloggers are.

I don't know how the author can possibly talk about the high payroll in a positive light. The last post-season appearnce for the M's came in 2001. Since then, the payroll kept going up, but nothing looked to be out of the ordinary. That is until the '06 offseason. Bavasi raised the payroll almost $20 million. Though they did have a second place finish, many people here were quick to point out that they got "lucky". This past offseason, Bavasi again raised the payroll just over $11 million. I can't see any owner standing by the GM if they continue to throw away so much money. Sadly, baseball is about making money. Just because there is no Chan Ho Park on the roster does not mean the totality of the team is not a Chan Ho Park.

"Just because there is no Chan Ho Park on the roster does not mean the totality of the team is not a Chan Ho Park."

***coughSexsoncough***

***coughVidrocough***

Apparently in the same sense that the Poles had quality, WWI veterans at every defensive position in 1939.

The Polish army was actually pretty good in 1939. They were just in an impossible strategic position. They had no viable defensive lines - their best hope probably would have been to fall back to the Vistula river, but that would have meant giving up half their territory, and it just would have delayed the issue.

Despite all that, and the fact that the Poles were attacked by the Soviets and got no help whatsoever from the British or French, they still held out for almost five weeks, or almost as long as France did.

"***coughVidrocough***"

Vidro doesn't exactly fit IMO because it was Washington that signed him to his current deal and carried him for part of it. Sexson, though, was a long-term big-money deal for a guy who almost immediately went into the tank.

At least he was good in 2005. That's a better season than anything the Rangers ever got out of Park.

Didn't the Poles still use horses for some of the army? I'm not saying this is why they were only able to hold out for five weeks (Jerry did a great job of this). It seems that they were woefully underprepared to handle the Germans. Of course, most everybody was even though the Germans had been rearming. Hindsight is 20/20.

At least he was good in 2005. That's a better season than anything the Rangers ever got out of Park Nevin.

This also holds true.

Despite all that, and the fact that the Poles were attacked by the Soviets and got no help whatsoever from the British or French, they still held out for almost five weeks, or almost as long as France did.

In fairness, I did consider using the French for that example as well. I'm open to better historical suggestions, actually, I wasn't in love with Poland but it was the best I could do on short notice.

"Didn't the Poles still use horses for some of the army?"

I don't know about horses, but they did use bears.

Didn't the Poles still use horses for some of the army?

Yes, but in 1939 horses were in use by almost every military force, not just the Poles. The Germans were still using them to haul artillery pieces all the way until the end of the war.

The Polish cavalry was actually pretty useful in the event, all things considered.

#16: Vidro doesn't exactly fit IMO because it was Washington that signed him to his current deal and carried him for part of it.

When the Mariners traded for Vidro, they picked up the option year that was in his contract (2008 season) and added a 2009 option that will vest if he gets sufficient ABs. So they did commit more money to when they acquired him.

But let's set aside the contract extension. When the Mariners acquired Vidro they made a decision to expend a commit a certain amount of payroll to him. It doesn't make any difference whether Vidro came with that contract or the Mariners signed him to an identical contract for the remaining years. In either case, the team is choosing to commit a certain amount of money to a player for a certain number of years.

The Mariners decision to acquire Vidro with the associated contract commitment is indistinquishable from them signing him to the same contract. If the contract would have been a stinker as a free agent signing, it's every bit as much a stinker if the contract comes via trade.

20... but did they have Bear Cavalry?

Apparently in the same sense that the Poles had quality, WWI veterans at every defensive position in 1939.

The Polish army was actually pretty good in 1939.

Yea, but the Navy really doomed itself with the screen doors on submarines.

</ bad Polish joke>

The Mariners decision to acquire Vidro with the associated contract commitment is indistinquishable from them signing him to the same contract. If the contract would have been a stinker as a free agent signing, it's every bit as much a stinker if the contract comes via trade.

Its even worse, isn't it? They actually had to give up talent in addition to spending money on a DH who can't slug .400. Although Snelling and Fruto didn't turn into much (although Fruto begat WM Pena who could still turn things around), I'd probably rather have Pena at this point than the rotting carcass of Jose Vidro.

Interesting choice of weapons on that despair.com look-alike, PMC!

I don't believe one man differs much from another man in terms of intelligence.

Another gem. By this yardstick, Steve Phillips or Kevin Malone are just a phone call away from Seattle!

Has he not noticed that Carlos Silva is currently doing a wonderful Chan Ho Park impression? He'll probably get better (his peripherals are still Silva-like)

But I'll cut him (and Bavasi) some slack. The rotation (at least the top 5) should have been pretty good -- Bedard and Hernandez above-average, the other three within spitting distance of a 100 ERA+. And who knew Putz was gonna walk 11 in 14 IP? (The rest of the pen looks a crap-shoot.)

On offense -- the Johjima extension was silly but there wasn't any reason to expect a cliff-dive this year. You're locked in with Lopez, Betancourt and Beltre and it would be hard to acquire upgrades. No reason to dump Ibanez and Ichiro (well, you could have shopped Ibanez around but don't imagine you'd get much). Clearly they needed a solution for RF and Sexson/Vidro were pretty clearly going to be inadequate coming into the season. And this was always going to be a lineup without an impact bat.

And the bench construction was awful. Cairo AND Bloomquist? I don't know if that was McLaren or Bavasi but that's a fireable offense. Just cutting Wilkerson and Norton? Neither's much but they're better than what Seattle has lurking around.

And unless the farm system is fully-stocked, this team is sunk for next year too. Well, they'll probably be better than this -- the rotation is better than this in true talent terms -- but you're still looking at holes at C (with the shiny 3-year extension attached), 1B, DH, and I think Ibanez is an FA (probably happy to come back, but his cliff is surely approaching) and Clement can only fill one of those positions.

"The Mariners decision to acquire Vidro with the associated contract commitment is indistinquishable from them signing him to the same contract. If the contract would have been a stinker as a free agent signing, it's every bit as much a stinker if the contract comes via trade."

But part of what made the Park deal so bad was the ridiculous length. It just went on and on and on.

Vidro was a bad signing, but he was a bad short-term signing. If they stop using him this year (as they should), then they will only have been on the hook for two seasons.

"Interesting choice of weapons on that despair.com look-alike, PMC!"

Tommy guns are badass. Who doesn't want to be Eliot Ness?