Chris Needham, who is something of a blogging hero to many of us Johnny Come Lately folks on the Internet, returned today with a pretty thorough, pretty Needham-like read.
He talks about the Post's story today on the new-look front office and how it is rather similar to a Post story done in 2007.
Chris, as usual, says it better than I could. Definitely worth a read.
He's right. It IS the same story, with different names offering the same thoughts. We WILL be a success, Chuck Lamar said then.
Chuck Lamar? Yeesh. Let's at least hope this round of new hires who will do things the right way and beat all the other teams and promise success can actually do that.
This time, I'll believe it when I see it. Not when I read about it.
4 comments:
Go back and dig out a Barry Svrluga quote from 2007 about Post Nats coverage, where he talks about how good and how thorough it is, how committed they are to covering the Nats and getting even better. Then compare it to Chico Harlan quotes from 2009, and see if there's any difference in them. No? Well, did the Post get any better in that time? No, I don't think so. And who's lecturing who about making promises and not keeping them?
The point is, the Lerners and Stan weren't lying in 2007 when they said they intended to do those things. They tried and failed, largely because they made a bad choice in the guy they trusted to head things up. His name was Bowden, in case you've forgotten. Now, after that failed first attempt the Lerners and Stan are trying again with a new cast.
I never thought I'd ever quote Ronald Reagan, but he knew what he was talking about when he said "Trust, but verify." You at least seem to believe that. Needham, however, can go to hell. He's never been anything but a Johnny One Note Lerners are Cheap demagogue. He wouldn't know a nuanced, reasoned argument if it kicked him in the balls. He ought to just go back to being the Yankee fan he always was and spare us his so-called "voice of the fan" cynicism.
ABM - I'll agree with you on your first point about the Nats. Organisations make mistakes. You don't know it's a mistake at the time, but in hindsight, it's bloody obvious. On your second point about Chris, I'll disagree. He offers the most reasoned Nat's analysis out there. His move to NBC wasn't good, but Capitol Punishment is always worth a read. As the article shows, don't just believe what Nats.com or the Post write, coz it's often just crap.
I certainly didn't post that with the idea of it leading to Chris bashing. One of the good things about my fandom is getting to know Chris. He's a very good, very sharp guy. I realize his writing style isn't for everyone (so does he). It's a bash you over the head style. I like it. Some don't. No big deal.
Nor was my point to quibble with the Post, though Chris does make good points.
My point: We've heard this all before. Why should we believe it now? Show me something, then brag about what you did to get there.
I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, for now, because of how different it was this time around. In '07 when they did this, they hired 4 or 5 guys to fill very high-level positions, and that's about it. This year they created something like 17 positions that the Front Office did not have previously. I know nothing about running a baseball team, or how many organizational levels there are to the scouting side, or how many people should be involved, but I think adding 17 people with the kind of experience I'm reading about will have a much better effect than 4.
I also see changes in the off-season behavior of the Nats so far. They made a to-do list and actually checked off several items. Here's the list (as I remember it):
SP- Check! (Marquis)
SP-
Back-up catcher capable of starting when Flores is hurt- Check! (Pudge)
MI-
Bolster/Revamp Bullpen- Partial check (Capps, Bruney, Guadardo, Walker)
In the past we make a list of needs, go out and sign 14 outfielders who can't actually play (see: Wily Mo Pena, Austin Kearns) and sign Odalis Perez to say they got a pitcher. The guys we signed might not be super-stars, but they are filling the teams defined needs adequately to make the team better. I think we will see improvement due to this approach. We won't contend, but we will improve. And this team proved last year that just because you were the worst in the league doesn't mean you automatically get better...
Post a Comment