I/O:  Valentine viewed as unwilling to come to Seattle if the Mariners are going to rebuild in 2011.

CRUNCH:  Have to part ways on this one. 

Valentine has stated, publicly, that he'd be glad to come here, and what could the 2011 Mariners possibly do but rebuild, even if they wanted something else? 

Have you checked the ages of the pitchers in the M's rotation?  Are the Mariners wedded to the kinds of fading Buddy Bells, Toby Harrahs and Cliff Johnsons that Bobby Valentine inherited in Texas in 1985 -- and whom he powerflushed in order to bring in young players who turned the ballclub around?

In 1996, Valentine walked into a 91-loss Mets team and turned its roster over the next spring training, installing, for example, a 23-year-old Edgardo Alfonzo in place of Jeff Kent.

.......................

Even supposing that Valentine preferred to use established vets over kids, which established vets are those in Seattle? 

Which vet catcher is going to be entitled?  Is there a young Mariner shortstop we don't want Valentine freezing out?  Is Valentine going to be confused about Justin Smoak's and Dustin Ackley's destinies here?

The tapestry of the ballclub does not make it possible for Valentine to pull a Mike Hargrove here.  Hey, Mike Hargrove couldn't pull a Mike Hargrove here; there are no 34-year-old vets to entitle.

The 2011 ballclub will be phasing in young org players at 1B, 2B, C, LF, SP SP etc, and Valentine has already publicly asked for the job.

.......................

Even supposing that there were a Hargrove danger here :- ) do you suppose that Bobby Valentine is unaware that the decisions at 2B, 1B, C and LF will be org decisions?  MLB baseball these days is big-time, and the roster decisions are organizational decisions, and the big-name managers are aware of that.

No worries about Valentine transitioning a young team.  He knows that's a given here, and we might doubt that he'd come here if he hadn't already issued a statement.

.......................

Chuck Knox used to get asked how he turned around every single loser he coached.  His reply, "these losing teams have had very high draft picks, and for multiple years.  Under those conditions, you ought to be able to produce a winner in 2 to 3 years."

Most coaches love to be seen as miracle workers.  With Smoak, Ackley, Pineda and co. hitting the beaches, the M's have a much more attractive scenario than you might think.

.

I/O:  Two opposite extremes:  a no-name developmental manager arriving with the new players, vs. a 600-lb. gorilla.

CRUNCH:  I'm not married to the idea of Bobby Valentine, but I think the "developmental manager" concept is ephemereal.  I think that the concept of a 600-lb. gorilla -- for this motley crue -- is quite anchored in reality.

Ron Luciano said that it took ML umpires at least five years to even begin to take a manager seriously.  I dunno about you, but I've had enough of soft Mariner teams to last me a good while.

Cheers,

Dr D