Add new comment

I have serious doubts about any "positive" impact Ibanez might have.
He returned to Seattle in 2004. That just happened to be the season Seattle plunged from 93 to 63 wins. (not saying he is to blame, just stating the facts).
His final year was 2008, (the club won 61 games).
In the first post-Ibanez season, the club won 85. (again, not saying "causation"), but clearly not a data point that argues for "added value", considering he was easily the most productive bat for Seattle in 2008.
Some of the young guys Ibanez had the opportunity to positively influence:
Yuni Betancourt
Jeremy Reed
Jose Lopez
Mike Morse
Adam Jones
Wlad Balentien
I mean ... seriously ... the club finally ditches the king of veteran-who-doesn't-help-anybody-else-at-all last season, and the kids production picks up ... yet, six months later the same drumbeat of the kids needing a dose of veteran-leadership doesn't even pause.
The Os got rid of Vlad and Lee and got better.
Who brought the magic veteran leadership potion to Oakland last season?
Why is it impossible for people to accept that Longoria or Posey or Cespedes is capable of bringing the makes-others-better magic to turn a club around, even without a decade of MLB (tm) experience?
Okay .. I protest too much ... perhaps. But, honestly, if one is looking for positive influence on others shouldn't one at least take the time to look at the pattern of behavior where a veteran HAS moved around, (like Ibanez)? When your coming/going win differential is 54 games to the BAD ... how does one justify the contention that Ibanez is actually likely to have any kind of positive benefit to anyone around him?