Originally Posted by edabbs44
Blaming Harang's roller coaster ride on Baker is a convenient excuse. Just like it was Baker's fault that Arroyo was going down the tubes until he turned into Pedro circa 2000 last July. Then we heard nothing about Baker leaving him in games too long. I am sure it will come up again if Arroyo gets pummelled in the first half of this year as well.
Listen, some signings work out and some don't. That's part of the game. But if a new owner comes in and gives a GM what, roughly $130MM to spend over the course of 2 years, you would expect some results on the field from the team as a whole. The GM went out and made a splash getting his hand picked closer, extended two starting pitchers and gave another lucrative extension to his 2B. And we saw $60ish million of that spending spree leave the ballpark over the last two years and have nothing to show for it.
We can continue to focus on WK's affect on this team on a micro-level and dress it up and make it look good. But there is more to being a GM than picking up the garbage from other teams. That was the one thing that Wayne had success in doing and you don't find many failed top 5 prospects on the curb all that often, let alone those who work out. I'd rather have the guy who performs better in the more frequently occurring baseball situations like FA signings, contract extensions and overall management of a roster. Now I'm not saying that Walt has shown this in his tenure so far (or that he has been given any roster flexibility to have a chance to do so) but I think he has shown this ability in St Louis.
#1 Where you are getting those totals I don't know, there were contracts on the books that had nothing to do with Wayne. You want to debate the dollars he gave to certain players fine but much of Wayne's payroll was already spent both years so 130 million is an exaggeration.
2nd and to use your analogy if I were given the funds to build said house that's one thing. But if I were hired to do a massive restoration and given a contracted amount of time to do it then I would presume to have the time alotted to have a finished product especially considering that people were going be occupying it as I restored. Therefore If I have to pay a little extra in the short term to make it livable then that's what I have to do it doesn't mean that same toilet is gonna be there when I'm done. Give me the time alotted to begin with before you go jumping to conclusions that I don't know what I'm doing based on how it looks midway thru the process. If at the end the budget hasn't worked out or I haven't done a fine job restoring it then we have a problem. But bringing in a new guy who might get rid of that temporary toilet to satisfy your budget concerns does nothing for the house if he doesn't know the first thing about plumbing anyway. What you have just done is cause a major delay in the process, probably will have cost yourself more dollars in the long run and still not get as quality a job as you would have with the 1st guy.