Justin Turner comments
Justin Turner is the latest player with a strong opinion about the Mariners front office. Or rather, Turner is the latest player to be approached by a columnist with a strong opinion about the Mariners front office.
“The fact that they missed the playoffs by one game, and didn’t go out and add an impact bat or two when you have the best pitching staff in baseball," former Mariners infielder Justin Turner told USA TODAY Sports, “just seems absurd to me." ... “Honestly, as much as I wanted to be back there," Turner said, “if I was the only piece they brought back in, I would be saying the same thing: What the hell are we doing? Are you trying?"
It is indeed frustrating the Mariners didn't add an "impact bat" this offseason. But it's ironic to hear this line of criticism coming from Turner, who isn't an impact bat himself. That the Mariners prioritized a reunion with Turner (or the other 40-year-old first baseman) was the part of the offseason that made me say, "What the hell are we doing?" Not that I expect players to connect the dots in this way, but it seems any team interested in Turner (and his projected 0.5 fWAR) isn't all that concerned with absolutely maximizing their roster. He's both pointing out the Mariners complacency and also the most recent evidence of their complacency--the setup and the punchline.
Turner says this after signing with the Cubs, who are projected for fewer wins than the Mariners. Yes, they made several moves and brought in "impact bat" Kyle Tucker. But all that shuffling created an offense pretty much identical to the Mariners on paper. If the Mariners don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, then why do the Cubs? The Mariners have been the significantly better team since COVID, and they're roughly even since Dipoto took over a decade ago. Is it the World Series banner from nine years ago? The payroll? Or is it really just the flash-over-substance transacting from the last few months? I'm fine with Turner painting the Mariners as a passive, mediocre franchise. But it's a passive, mediocre league! There are two teams projected for more than 90 wins this year, and 18 teams projected for between 81 and 87 wins, including the Turner-less Mariners and Turner-full Cubs.
I don't mean to pick on Turner too much. Admittedly, my instinct when these types of stories come out is to defend the Mariners, perhaps more than I should. As mentioned at the top, the article reads like Bob Nightengale had something he wanted to say and used Turner to fill in the story like a Mad Libs. These stories (via their authors) also tend to inflate weak talking points, which linger in the community long enough to become distorted, like a shitty game of Telephone where "Jerry Dipoto" is the clue (or was it "John Stanton"). I try to push back against the faultiest premises when I see them.
We don't need Turner or whoever to say any of this. None of this is evidence of anything. Piecing apart the specifics and distributing the exact right amount of blame is a pointless exercise. The Mariners don't win enough games. That's the only thing that matters.
Other quotes
There's a bunch else in the article I found questionable, not least of which is the irony that Turner of all people has thoughts about the Mariners decision to get rid of Kendall Graveman of all people. I'm tired of discussing that trade, but I'll just say trading old relievers for young position players is almost always smart (especially when you get a better reliever in the deal as well).
Turner also said the Mariners might have the "best five starting pitchers in the history of the game." That's almost certainly an exaggeration. The Mariners rotation is very good, but they finished fourth in MLB by fWAR last year. In fact, it was only the eighth most rotation fWAR in team history. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, because I do think very highly of the rotation. But that specific talking point should be reined in a bit. One day the Mariners might have the actual best rotation ever, and we'll regret having watered down the headlines with, "No for real this time." (Also, if you needed another reason to not put a ton of weight into Turner's Monday Morning Front Office Executive column, in this section he compares Logan Gilbert to Felix because of their win-loss record.)
There were some other quotes about firing Scott Servais and hiring Dan Wilson. The way Bob frames Turner's quote makes it seem the players prefer Wilson to Servais, but I'm not sure Turner's opinion carries much weight, given he spent less than a month with Servais. And the quotes from other players seem like the standard "there's a mic in my face, everything is fine, go away" Spring Training fare.
Update 3/6:
The Seattle Times ran a follow up. Basically, the players liked Turner a lot as a "clubhouse guy" (my words) and wanted him back. That's fine. I tend to buy into the "clubhouse guy" stuff more than others, and I think that's a reasonable reason to bring someone back. But almost every year we get a similar story about a new "clubhouse guy."
Ryan Divish does confirm the Mariners tried to bring back Turner (and Carlos Santana, as I allude to above):
The Mariners tried to give the players what they wanted. They made offers to Turner and Carlos Santana in the offseason to share first base with Raley and also get plenty of plate appearances at designated hitter, hoping to have one of the two signed by December. But the holidays passed without the Mariners making a signing. Santana turned down what was essentially a two-year contract from the Mariners to sign a one-year, $12 million deal to return to the Guardians on Dec. 21. The proximity to his family, who reside in Kansas City, and Santana’s affection for the organization that helped develop him as a big leaguer was worth more than the money. Per sources close to the situation, the Mariners contacted Turner on multiple occasions throughout the offseason with one-year offers that were more than the $6.5 million he eventually received from the Cubs just before spring training. But when Turner wouldn’t commit, they eventually went out and signed Donovan Solano to a one-year, $4.5 million contract instead and later brought back Jorge Polanco on a one-year, $7.75 million contract.
The meat of the story is about how the players are similarly skeptical of the front office, especially ownership. A lot of it is old and recycled quotes from a few years ago (Divish said most players weren't willing to talk on the record about the Nightengale story). Turner was more forgiving in his comments of Jerry Dipoto and more skeptical of ownership. The players in Divish's article seem to agree, although they don't say much. Again, I don't care to piece apart the blame.
--