Random Thoughts and Questions

Since we apparently have a new general manager (I'm withholding commentary for the moment), it seems an appropriate time to wonder about Jim Tracy and his coaching staff.

Given that Tracy was put in charge of a team laden with young starting pitchers when he first took this job and given that his team this season has at least been free of Randa and Burnitz, I figure an appropriate question to ask is: Are any of the players appreciably better than they were before Tracy and his coaching staff were placed in their current positions? I likewise figure an appropriate follow-up question is: How much of the growth/development, if any, can be attributed to coaching versus to development that comes as a result of more exposure to the major leagues?

Seriously, any takers out there? Freddy Sanchez won a batting title in 2006, clearly better than his previous 2005 campaign, but one scouting report had pegged him a "potential batting champion" down the line if he followed a normal growth curve. Say what you will, but I have a hard time believing that any specific coaching helped Sanchez win a batting title or hit over .300.

Well, what about the young pitchers? However the last two games of his season go, whether good, mediocre, or awful, his other 31 starts in 2007 showed Ian Snell is a way better pitcher than he was back in 2005 and better this season than he was in 2006. Tom Gorzelanny's statistics this season likewise indicate an upward tick in his development. Paul Maholm had a string of several good second half starts before hurting his back and looked closer to the winning ways he flashed as a rookie. And speaking of flashing rookie form, I'm still waiting for the Zach Duke of 2005 to make another appearance, hopefully one that can last for more than half a season, though at this point I'd enjoy seeing that performance for a game. So, when it comes to the pitchers, do I say Colburn's done good work with Snell and Gorzy that's benefited them? Or do I attribute growth merely to more exposure to the big leagues? Do I blame Colburn for whatever's been inhibiting Zach Duke from coming closer to the pitcher who was good enough to win eight games, legitimately, as a rookie?

But, really, management and coaches, even with young players, must be held accountable to the only standard that matters. Which means that, really, I'm asking the wrong questions. Yes, I'm asking about results in terms of which players are actually appreciably better--I can state Sanchez, Snell, and Gorzy with confidence, and believe that the latter two actually benefited from coaching, at least for periods of time if not continuously--but I'm not asking the only results-oriented question that matters. That question? Did enough players improve enough to turn losses into wins?

As evidenced by the Bucco record, the answer to that question is a cold, hard no. And despite the impressive growth experienced by a few players (whatever their final statistics say, there's been enough evidence to see growth), the good to great growth experienced by a few players hasn't been enough to turn a losing team into even a mediocre .500 team, let alone a winning team.

At some point in time, someone has to be held accountable for those wins and losses for the sake of the players who have shown they do have what it takes to win. That will be the new general manager's job, and in order for the team to win more games than they lose, the new general manager would be advised to seek a new manager and a coaching staff who can rid the clubhouse of the toxicity and complacency losing breeds as well as a manager and coaching staff who will build on the developmental foundations that have already been laid for a few players--and a coaching staff who will know how to lay good foundations for other inexperienced players--while always fielding a lineup that gives players the best possible chance to succeed and the team the greatest likelihood of winning.

A tall order, sure. An order we've seen should probably no longer be entrusted to Jim Tracy and his staff--basically because, at some point, the players themselves need to know that winning, not losing, is the expected norm, and that excellence, not mediocrity, definitely not-let's-be-proud-we-weren't-embarrassed-by-a-contending-team, but only excellence, can be the mindset of the leadership of a team that aspires to accumulate more wins than losses.