| By Chris Crawford |  | By 01-29-2010 |
According to Shannon Drayer, the M's have signed Eric Byrnes to a one year deal.
It seems likely he wont be paid much more than the league minimum.
Byrnes was a 3 to 4 WAR player until an injury plagued poor 2009.
This probably puts an end to the position player additions, minus a Jose Lopez trade -- but this is a good addition, especially at the cost.
Little harm in giving Byrnes a try to regain former glory, and at very worst is a decent OF who can steal bases.
byrnes-a-mariner
Comments
The following 87 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: jgstecker on 01-29-2010 17:53:41 With Byrnes on board, is there any reason to carry Langerhans anymore? |
| 2. By: FelixElRey on 01-29-2010 17:54:24 Low risk, medium reward. No complaints here I suppose. |
| 3. By: JHamlin22 on 01-29-2010 18:00:26 How can this possibly be a bad deal? For that price, why not see if he can regain his old form. |
| 4. By: kyle_mahlstedt on 01-29-2010 18:00:48 I LOVE IT! This is crazy! Back in November JAC and I were chatting on Facebook and I asked him about Eric Byrnes. He thought it was a great fit, but his high contract was an issue!! LOVE IT!! |
| 5. By: kyle_mahlstedt on 01-29-2010 18:01:33 ERIC BYRNES AND GRADY SIZEMORE WILL BATTLE IT OUR FOR "COMEBACK PLAYER OF THE YEAR" I hope lol |
| 6. By: jgstecker on 01-29-2010 18:02:01 I'm pretty sure league rules will only allow Seattle to pay him the league minimum, with Arizona obligated to pay the rest of his contract. |
| 7. By: ARock on 01-29-2010 18:02:10 The only bad part about this is that it (probably) means: No willingham, No Damon, no money left for anything but the one last starting pitcher. On the plus side, Byrnes is a good backup given that we are paying him the minimum. |
| 8. By: universalguru on 01-29-2010 18:02:24 jgstecker I was also thinking that at this point Byrnes seems like a RH unhealthy Langerhans... but if healthy he could be a steal. Not much risk, but I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed if this means we're done trying to upgrade the offense right now. Jason, could this mean that the M's are a bit more strapped financially than originally thought? Is Hannahan likely our only backup infielder? |
| 9. By: pwhit44 on 01-29-2010 18:04:13 "With Byrnes on board, is there any reason to carry Langerhans anymore?" Yes. Despite what they say about Junior, I think Bradley is really the DH at this point, with a little bit of LF. Which leaves Ichiro, Gutierrez, Byrnes, and Langerhans/Saunders as the four outfielders. |
| 10. By: Chris Crawford on 01-29-2010 18:05:18 I'm trying to decide if this means the end of Langerhans or not. on any given day theyre going to have four guys on the bench, one will be a C, one will be hannahan, one will be griffey/bradley or byrnes....without looking? I think that might add room, though I know theyre kicking the tires on adding another IF too. We'll see. I like the move though. |
| 11. By: pwhit44 on 01-29-2010 18:06:36 ARock- I agree, probably no Damon. But it wouldn't be that hard to ditch Langerhans, send Saunders to Tacoma, and sign Damon to share LF with Byrnes if they really wanted. Won't happen, but hypothetically possible. |
| 12. By: universalguru on 01-29-2010 18:09:52 Langerhans deal is guaranteed correct? |
| 13. By: jgstecker on 01-29-2010 18:13:11 M's won't lose sleep over paying Langerhans $525k to play for Tacoma. |
| 14. By: Edman on 01-29-2010 18:13:31 I don't get it, ARock. No money for a starting pitcher? Why don't we have more money? Byrnes most likely isn't going to be paid that much. The Diamondbacks will be paying most of his salary. Assuming that Jack didn't give him an a lot of money he didn't have to, it's a no-risk deal. If Langerhans doesn't make the team, I don't see it as a huge loss. Brynes is an adequate defender. |
| 15. By: universalguru on 01-29-2010 18:14:29 Is that all? I thought it was a bit more than that. In that case you're right. I think Langerhans may very well end up in Tacoma. He'll have to win a spot on the team. |
| 16. By: Edman on 01-29-2010 18:15:24 Sorry, I misread ARock's comment. But really, how much more do we need, other than another starting pitcher? |
| 17. By: ARock on 01-29-2010 18:47:12 Yeah, no money EXCEPT for a Starting Pitcher. :) We dont really NEED anything else, but upgrading into a couple more wins somewhere owuld be nice. LF looked like the best place to do that |
| 18. By: shortstop9 on 01-29-2010 19:15:55 I hate it.We still have not added any power.Nobody in this lineup provides any protection.Byrnes is no better than a right handed Langerhans. |
| 19. By: universalguru on 01-29-2010 19:18:39 There's no reason to hate it. Come on now. There's no risk there. And if the M's are a little low on payroll this move looks even better. |
| 20. By: Boise M on 01-29-2010 19:36:44 I'm pretty sure that Langerhans signed a split contract so he can be optioned to Tacoma if need be. This is a great signing! If Byrnes pans out and Saunders starts coming around with the bat that is damn fine defensive and offensive outfield. The more AB's for Milton Bradley at DH the better. |
| 21. By: universalguru on 01-29-2010 19:44:19 I'm pretty sure the only way Saunder makes the club is if he's shown huge improvement in batting against lefties in spring. I doubt the M's would bring up Saunders and bench him too often against left-handers. I'd think they'd want him to see them every time they take the mound until he improves. If he becomes a platoon guy he'll never get the chance to face lefties and work on his approach. Saunders is an everyday player in the future and they won't start off his career as a platoon guy. |
| 22. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-29-2010 20:05:08 Byrnes was a free agent, Seattle could pay him whatever they wanted. But since Arizona is paying him still, whatever his deal in Seattle is is what Arizona is still on the hook for. If he signed a 1 year $5 million deal, Arizona would be on the hook for 6.667 mil, instead of 11.3ish for 2010. |
| 23. By: FatBat on 01-29-2010 20:40:14 Its hard to not be on the fence on this. If its a insurance plan for a back up job then its a no brainer up grade over Langerhans. If this is the one bat we were waiting for...not good enough. We will see. I just read in the paper today that Big Z see's us as the 3rd best team in out division. If Brynes is a throw in to play out between Langerhans, Saunders and Him then not a big deal and we will see in spring. But if this is to upgrade our offense as is? He is not enough to move us past Texas. Saying that I can only hope this is one of maybe one or two more moves on the way in the next few weeks. I can hope. Its going to be a tuff three team race. |
| 24. By: Mekias on 01-29-2010 20:54:56 The fact is that we weren't going to suddenly pick up a clean-up hitter in the Adrian Gonzalez mold. If people are going to be sad about the Byrnes signing because he's no Adrian Gonzalez, well there's not much that's going to pacify them. There may be a few guys out there who could have outhit Byrnes against lefties but they would all cost either money or players. Even in the injury riddled last two years, Byrnes has hit about .800 OPS versus lefties. Considering the defense and speed, that makes him very valuable as a platoon player. Add to that, there's a chance that he regains some of his 2007 form and performs even better. I can't see any negative to this signing. |
| 25. By: Jackson on 01-29-2010 22:07:16 "I just read in the paper today that Big Z see's us as the 3rd best team in our division." He was referring to the fact that we finished 3rd in the division last season, not how we currently stack up against our division opponents. |
| 26. By: CrimsonNW on 01-29-2010 23:35:11 I like it. It's not a slam dunk, but it's still a good deal. Very low risk. At worst, we have a solid defensive replacement/pinch runner for the league minimum. I still fully expect us to get another back-end rotation arm though. |
| 27. By: CrimsonNW on 01-29-2010 23:35:42 And by back-end, I mean better than Fister/Vargas/Olson etc. |
| 28. By: mymrbig on 01-30-2010 00:47:11 Three things: (1) Like the move. Costs nothing and Byrnes might still have some upside, particularly vs LHP. (2) Byrnes doesn't block further upgrades in LF. If it works out that Z can get a better player, cutting Byrnes costs nothing. If the price is right on Damon or Willingham or someone else, they can still do it. (3) Anyone see an obvious platoon here? Everyone else keeps talking about Byrnes/Langerhans. I think it is Byrnes/Griffey. Against LHP, Byrnes starts in LF with Bradley at DH. Against RHP, Bradley starts in LF with Griffey at DH. Langerhans is more of a true 4th OF. |
| 29. By: Blowgun7 on 01-30-2010 01:19:07 Exactly. It's going to be Bradley in LF and Griffey at DH against righties. And Bradley at DH and Byrnes in LF against lefties. Langerhans will get some PT when one of the three inevitably is day to day with some ailment. While Jack has done a great job this offseason, the amount of injury plagued regulars he's brung on board is reason for some concern. However, he wouldnt have gotten a lot of these guys for the price he did if they didn't have injury concerns, so I guess he had to roll the dice on these guys. |
| 30. By: Faceplant on 01-30-2010 01:50:43 "We dont really NEED anything else, but upgrading into a couple more wins somewhere owuld be nice. LF looked like the best place to do that." Byrnes is here for the league minimum. If the M's find a better player to fill Byrnes' roster spot, then there is nothing stopping them from making that improvement. Byrnes isn't going to block a better player. |
| 31. By: Faceplant on 01-30-2010 01:55:10 Just curious Jason, If a team could sign Byrnes for whatever they wanted, and the D-Backs are on the hook for all but the league minimum... then what would stop the signing team from signing him to, say, 15 million dollar one year contract just to stick it to Arizona? |
| 32. By: pwhit44 on 01-30-2010 04:34:15 Faceplant, they are only on the hook for what they owe on his original contract... $11 million for this year, or whatever it is. ... |
| 33. By: jgstecker on 01-30-2010 10:26:22 Byrnes said last night on Callabro's show that the M's will pay him the minimum. He also said that any team that wanted him would only have to pay the minimum, which was a great situation for him because money was not a factor at all in where he chose to play. If they have the interview posted on the 710 website, its worth listening to. It'll get you excited for Spring Training. |
| 34. By: Faceplant on 01-30-2010 11:15:46 32, I was under the impression from Jason's post that Arizona would be on the hook for whatever Seattle signed Byrnes for, not for what Byrnes original contract was. I think I'm just misunderstanding what Jason was saying. |
| 35. By: Jackson on 01-30-2010 11:36:44 The Mariners are paying Byrnes the league minimum (400k), Arizona is still responsible for the remaining amount (11M). |
| 36. By: FelixElRey on 01-30-2010 12:15:39 Just to put it in other terms... Arizona is responsible for paying enough to bring Byrnes' total salary to 11M. We pay 400K, so they pay 10.6M |
| 37. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-30-2010 12:18:38 Dave Cameron explained it a while back pretty succinctly. Short version is that Byrnes has no motivation for seeking more than the league minimum from any club he signs with since he is getting 11MM regardless after being released in Arizona. All getting more money would do is lessen the burden on the Diamondbacks. Well unless a club was willing to give him more than 11MM. Zero percent of that happening so he could just sign with anyone he wanted to since the salary is the same across the board. |
| 38. By: Faceplant on 01-30-2010 14:49:34 Got it. Thanks guys! |
| 39. By: rotoenquire on 01-30-2010 15:33:24 With the signing of Byrns. And the reported interest in R. Baldelli. Does this mean the M's are still in the hunt to trade for another Starting Pitcher? It would make M. Saunders far more expendable this year. Is A. Harrang still possible or is there another SP on the block someplace were not talking about? With Jacky Z, we may never know till ti happens.. |
| 40. By: rotoenquire on 01-30-2010 15:37:46 I read many are still worried about the power. Boone was our power hitter when we had what 112 wins. Safeco is built for pitchign and defence. We will dominate in safeco and only need to go 50-50 away from the park to have a chance at the playoffs. Going to be some of the quickest games in baseball at safeco field this year... |
| 41. By: Chris Crawford on 01-30-2010 16:25:19 I would be stunned if they didn't make a move for a SP between now and opening day, but we'll see, there certainly seems to be room in the pay roll. |
| 42. By: Edman on 01-30-2010 16:31:18 I think that Jack has done a great job managing money. If he wanted to, he could probably take on a decent enough portion of Harang's salary, to possibly make a deal. I have no idea if he's interested, but certainly it leaves that possibility. Really, it applies to any team willing to move a pitcher for financial reasons. Signing Baldini would be a decent move, as well. Then, let them battle it out. Best off-season for the M's, that I can remember. |
| 43. By: FelixElRey on 01-30-2010 16:40:38 I would not feel comfortable signing Baldelli in order to make Saunders expendable. Sure, it hedges our bet that at least one is effective/healthy throughout the year, but there's still a good chance that both are flat out ineffective. I'd have to be blown away with a deal for Saunders to feel good about it. |
| 44. By: CrimsonNW on 01-30-2010 17:20:38 During the media day, Jack Z did not sound too confident at all in our triple-headed #5 starter. If I were a betting man, I would count on Jack Z going out and getting something done to upgrade there. |
| 45. By: shortstop9 on 01-30-2010 17:41:35 Why does everyone worry so much about Saunders. He still needs a year of AAA for sure.He will be a decent player but I don't see anything special there. |
| 46. By: Edman on 01-30-2010 19:43:14 I say this every year, and some don't get it. Saunders has to earn his job, not be given it. Baldini, Byrnes, it doesn't matter. Saunders has to play his best, learn as fast as he can, and that will determine his fate. But the idea that the M's shouldn't try to bring in as many good candidates as possible, would be wrong. Saunders won't be hurt by time at AAA, either. |
| 47. By: FelixElRey on 01-30-2010 20:04:43 Just to clarify my position, I just don't like the idea of bringing in Baldelli to feel more comfortable trading away Saunders. I don't have a problem with him in AAA. |
| 48. By: FatBat on 01-30-2010 20:56:35 Jackson Dude, read the article again. He said and I quote " as I look at it, we are STILL the third best club in our division..." No big deal but don't waist a comment if you don't know yourself. Just sayin. No hard feelings or anything. Now, my only beef with signing Byrnes isnt Byrnes. Its the if's it add's to this team. Thats all I'm saying. To many IF's makes me edgy! If's, make me think someone drank half my beer when I left to take a leek. Confusion. I like to be sure is all. Just me. I still like competition. |
| 49. By: Jackson on 01-30-2010 22:08:50 Look at the comment in it's context. "At this moment in time, we haven't proven a thing. It's nice to have had a successful winter, if you will, but as I look at it, we are still the third best club in this division and it will be very, very competitive. [...] At the end of the day, the game is not played this time of the year, it's not played in the newspapers, it's not played in the hot stove league, it's played on the field." |
| 50. By: Jackson on 01-30-2010 22:29:43 I transcribed that from the audio as I hadn't seen Larry Stone's article. Basically, the Angels are the defending AL West champions until proven otherwise. Jack Zduriencik is not going to arrogantly proclaim that the Mariners are now the team to beat after an offseason of moves. |
| 51. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-30-2010 22:38:04 I love how Ed is calling Rocco Baldelli "baldini" over and over. Not sure if it's intentional or not, but it's hilarious either way! |
| 52. By: Uncle Al on 01-30-2010 23:07:19 Picking up Byrnes this year makes all the sense in the world. He's RH, cost them nothing, and could actually improve after two seasons of injuries. It's interesting to look at the 2011 roster construction and the need for RH hitters switches to needing LH hitters. They will need Saunders in 2011 and they can just let Byrnes go without suffering any kind of a loss. This may not of been a big move but it sure was a smart one. |
| 53. By: jakemantooth3 on 01-30-2010 23:17:14 Jason, how do you see the logjam in left field working out? If Bradley gets substantial playing time out there, then that doesn't leave much time for Saunders, Langerhans and Byrnes. Any chance of Saunders starting the year in Tacoma? How many options does he have left? Then add on the fact that you need to carry a backup catcher and a backup infielder, it doesn't leave room for all 3 of them unless they carry one less pitcher which i don't think they should or want to do. |
| 54. By: Edman on 01-31-2010 00:34:35 Nah, just a typos. I guess I think he's more of a Houdini. |
| 55. By: jgstecker on 01-31-2010 09:22:17 jakemantooth3~ Barring an injury, my money's on both Saunders and Langerhans starting the year in Tacoma. LF will be a Bradley/Byrnes platoon, DH will be a Griffey/Bradley platoon, and the to-be-determined 4th bench guy will be a right-handed 1B who can platoon with Kotchman and fill in at DH when Griffey or Bradley can't go. |
| 56. By: Lailoken on 01-31-2010 10:41:32 Reed Johnson is still out there. Career .841 OPS versus RHP. Career +23.3 UZR/150 in LF. 33 years old. .903 OPS versus lefties in 2009 & also played a decent CF with a -2.1 UZR. Considering how late in the offseason it is he could come cheap. No reason to stop at Byrnes. Whoever is on the bench can earn their spot. |
| 57. By: maqman on 01-31-2010 11:30:58 Z is never going to be done signing and trading. When he dies he'll have probably left a note for the undertaker offering to trade his collection of surplus bobbleheads for a top of the line titanium coffin. |
| 58. By: bodhizefa on 01-31-2010 11:39:37 jakemantooth, I don't think there's much chance of Saunders starting the year with the big club at this point. I think it's safe to assume he'll begin the season in Tacoma. However, considering the health history of Griffey, Bradley, and Byrnes, it's also probably safe to assume he'll be back up before long. In a perfect world, we'd only carry 11 pitchers so we could keep both Byrnes and Langerhans as well as a RH bat who can play first base. Saunders, in my opinion, is too much of a risk to be a full-time guy for us just yet. I like the idea of him getting a bit more seasoning on the farm in 2010 so that he has a shot to be our everyday guy in 2011. Now who do we get for the right-handed first baseman? I'd love Willingham, but I think at this point, if we're going to get a good pitcher, Willingham's price would cut into the remaining budget too deeply. And at this point, I wonder if we even have the at bats to really take advantage of Willingham, too. For the role that we're looking to use him in (i.e. RH 1B), Willingham just doesn't make any sense at his current price. I suppose I could get interested in Garko, although he's pretty bad with the glove at first. Callaspo would also be an interesting bat if he could learn the position (he could be a secondary Utility infielder for us). |
| 59. By: jgstecker on 01-31-2010 12:13:11 11 pitchers might work if we get a real innings eater for a #3 SP. Marcus Thames played a little 1B a couple years ago and he wasn't horrible. Seems like every year he goes on a three-week long stint where he can carry an offense and then disappears completely. There's always Mike Sweeney. No idea if he could handle 20+ games at 1B though. |
| 60. By: marinerforever on 01-31-2010 13:11:55 What about Fausto Carmona it seems like the indians are looking to move payroll it seems like a perfect jack z move buy low high reward guy |
| 61. By: universalguru on 01-31-2010 13:32:54 is that some sort of weird sarcasm or do you not check in with this site very often? |
| 62. By: bodhizefa on 01-31-2010 15:04:08 marinerforever, I'm not so sure Carmona could be described as a "high reward guy." Maybe a mid-level reward if everything broke perfectly. Still, if we're going to trade for a pitcher, I'd much rather trade for someone more likely to actually help us than hurt us (example: Aaron Harang). |
| 63. By: marinerforever on 01-31-2010 16:32:46 bodhizefa Have you looked at Harangs stat line the last couple of years not to mention that he is pitching in the nl which has inferior lineups would much rather go for a younger guy with devlopement left to go |
| 64. By: bodhizefa on 01-31-2010 17:04:07 Yes, I have looked at his stat line. And what does it tell me? He's light years better than Carmona, that's what. Why in the world would you want to go with someone who has "development left to go" during a season where we're obviously contending when A) that player is, as it stands now, a poor player, and B) you have no idea what his timetable to develop would be? Harang is a good pitcher. Even though he's no longer an ace, he's still a 2 to 3.5 WAR player, especially once you get him out of that homer haven in Cincy. Carmona, on the other hand, has been absolutely atrocious for the past two years. And you want to actually pay for someone like that? Really? In a season where we're very likely to contend for the division, you're telling me you'd rather take a guy like Carmona, who has run xFIP's nearing 5.00 the past two seasons, over a guy like Harang who is in the 4.00 xFIP range? All because you want some "upside" or "development left to go"? I think that's crazy talk. |
| 65. By: shortstop9 on 01-31-2010 20:29:41 I wish we could find a way to get Brandon Phillips from Cincy.He would really fit here.A gold glover a 2B and a legit cleanup hitter.Maybe if we took Arroyo or Wily Taveras off their hands also. |
| 66. By: StandinPat on 01-31-2010 20:35:50 Brandon Phillips a legit cleanup hitter? He's been a slightly above hitter in a bandbox in the NL. Bring him to Safeco and he's average at best, ie = Lopez. |
| 67. By: slamcactus on 01-31-2010 20:50:20 "I'm pretty sure league rules will only allow Seattle to pay him the league minimum, with Arizona obligated to pay the rest of his contract." It's not league rules, it's basic contract law. Arizona owes him money on his contract. That dollar figure is offset by however much money he can earn elsewhere, whether it's by playing for another team, getting a coaching job, or waiting tables. Seattle was free to offer him as much as they wanted, but given that nobody was going to top $11 million for Byrnes, there was no reason for them to offer (or for Byrnes to seek) anything more than the league minimum. |
| 68. By: masonb on 01-31-2010 22:43:24 I know this idea will probably be shot down, but what about the possibility of bringing Carlos Delgado in to split time at DH? I know he is LH, but if he could split time with Kotchman at first and Bradley at DH, with Bradley playing the field some, that would give this lineup a boost. Is there even room on this roster from Delgado or someone like him, ie Russell Branyan perhaps? |
| 69. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-31-2010 23:53:56 Here's the problem... Why would Delgado agree to be a part-time anything? |
| 70. By: masonb on 02-01-2010 00:14:07 I wasn't saying he would be part time, some games you would have Delgado at first, Bradley DH'ing, and whomever in left, and then other games you would have Delgado DH'ing, Kotchman at first, and Bradley in left. I don't know if that would work, but could you envision a situation where that could work? It just seems like you can't count on Bradley playing 140+ games even if he were to DH 90% of the time, and the same probably goes for Delgado. It just seems like having another hitter like Delgado would protect this lineup from injuries somewhat |
| 71. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 00:28:17 Not a prayer in the world of signing Delgado. Griffey isn't gonna be a pinch-hitter. Working time in for four guys isn't going to work. Besides the fact that last time he was available, Delgado had a great preference to stay on the east coast. If we're gonna play the pretend game, work out the logistics and quit trying to factor out Griffey. He's gonna be here next season. All the wishing and hoping in the world, isn't gonna change that. Stay within the lines, if you're gonna color. |
| 72. By: Lamda on 02-01-2010 02:42:34 I agree with Ed - those hoping that Griff is only going to get 100-200 ab's at most just aren't dealing in reality. He's going to get his playing time more than that. I know a lot hate the fact that he's on the team but it is what it is, expect him to get his 300-400 ab's just like he did last year. As I said, I know a lot on here and other sites just see him as a gimmick for this year but you're setting yourselves up for a disappointment - just wait and see. |
| 73. By: slick on 02-01-2010 05:14:35 Jose Julio Ruiz, Cuban 1B/OF just has been named a free agent by MLB Office. M's worked him out about 10 weeks ago, I have read he has a good bat and thats about it. |
| 74. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 10:52:14 Bats are always good. I would guess that it comes down to how much they thing his bat is worth. |
| 75. By: candasharp on 02-01-2010 11:36:52 Garko signed by M's on one year deal for 550K according to news reports. |
| 76. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 11:50:52 Good deal, if the report is accurate. Definitely an improved bench, offensively. I'm a little concerned about a utility player. I think Hannahan could fill that role. I actually like him in that role. I guess this leaves the pitcher that was referred to at Fanfest. As a side note, the A's pulled of a good high-risk, high-reward deal today. The got Willie Traveras and Adam Rosales from the Reds for Aaron Miles and a PTBNL. None of these guys are world beaters. But, I think that one of the two they got from the Reds could pan-out. |
| 77. By: rotoenquire on 02-01-2010 12:33:50 R. Garko is a mariner. Jackie is sighning from my behining of the hotstove season wish list... He is just showing off now. Look at me I can sign everyone.... LOL gotta love it... |
| 78. By: DMac33 on 02-01-2010 12:36:36 Jackie Z going to the Casey Stengal school of baseball - platoon, platoon, platoon. Couple thoughts here: 1) Bradley is a much better left-handed hitter than right-handed hitter. Wouldn't shock me if he sits from time to time against lefties as is. 2) Garko's clearly a great platoon option - look at the career stats: '06: .333 BA and .938 OPS (39 ABs - large sample size) '07: .310 BA and .914 OPS (142 ABs) '08: .315 BA and .857 OPS (124 ABs) '09: .308 BA and .870 OPS (117 ABs) Very consistent over time and someone that you can definitely plug into the middle of the order against lefties and feel very comfortable. 3) Kotchman's stats tend to show that he's adequate against lefties: '07: .292 BA and .852 OPS vs. RHP and .315 BA and .775 OPS vs. LHP (almost equal OBP) '08: .261 BA and .708 OPS vs RHP and .303 BA and .819 OPS vs. LHP '09: The numbers pretty much sucked across the board 4) The moral I guess to the story is that I'd expect that Kotchman is still going to be slated to play in the 140-145 game range at 1B and that just because Garko will play against LHP, I'm thinking that these may be the days that Bradley may get his days off. This also takes into account the fact that Garko isn't tremendously gifted with the glove. All in all, let's put together the #3 starter now (should still be room to go get someone with some salary) and this team is looking to be well positioned heading into Spring Training and has a team that will appear to have some well-defined roles. |
| 79. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 12:42:53 The M's have a need to platoon more than most teams. They travel farther than any other team in MLB. I haven't checked that lately, but they have always traditionally traveled the most miles of any team. Crappy scheduling doesn't help, either. |
| 80. By: DMac33 on 02-01-2010 13:08:06 Edman: I think that a platoon is a great way to maximize the talents of your team/players when you have a number of flawed players. Studs are studs and generally are regardless ... The ultimate test with a platoon is can you stick with it when you are playing in higher pressure situations. For example, if you've been running out Byrnes in LF, Kotchman at 1B, and Garko at DH against LHP all season and you are facing Sabathia in the playoffs, do you change anything to get Bradley into the lineup? Travel is what it is ... but honestly, that's the norm in the West. It gets tiring to travel all the time, but that's what days off and 10 game homestands are for. |
| 81. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 13:26:15 If Lou Piniella believed enough in its affects, so do I. |
| 82. By: DMac33 on 02-01-2010 13:42:02 My point Edman is that there isn't anything that you can change with traveling by being a West Coast team. It is what it is ... The part of using a platoon that I agree with more than anything else is that it keeps everybody sharp and ready to go. That's clearly important over the course of 162 games. The difficult part of that though is what do you do when you get to 2 weeks left in the season and in a pennant race or you are playing in the postseason. Do you change your strategy of what got you there versus playing your best players? I don't think relying on platoons is the best way to go about things long-term ... but can be a great way to address short-term issues effectively. |
| 83. By: StandinPat on 02-01-2010 13:43:03 Couple of things, 1) M's still have a ton of flexibility. I don't think we can say for certain if they'll break camp with 11 pitchers and Langerhans, or 12 and no real 4th OF. Langerhans has a split contract so he could spend the first two weeks in AAA while the starters get stretched out. On the flip side the M's could go with an 11 man staff from the start and and just shuttle the several back of the rotation/pen types they have back and forth to fill their need. 2) They have committed so little to these platoons/upgrades it'd be silly to just assume this is the team they are locked into for the entire year, let alone the playoffs. Wak is ultimately gonna give the nod to the guys who are performing the best, and Jack isn't gonna carry dead weight just cause he is owed 500k. I wouldn't bet against Zduriencik looking for a 1B upgrade come the trade deadline, so the whole platoon come playoff issue may be moot. |
| 84. By: Hackinator on 02-01-2010 14:19:48 I have seen Garko play a lot ... we called him Fred Flintstone ... when you see him with his hat off you will see why ... he is very slow, but he did go to Stanford so he has some smarts ....and I believe at one time was a catcher . |
| 85. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 14:57:01 He was a catcher. He won the Johnny Bench award (I assume for defense) as a catcher at Stanford. He could at least be a decent emergency catcher. Pat, name the last time Seattle (or any club, for that matter) broke camp with 11 pitchers. We don't know for sure that they won't, but it is safe to assume, they won't. And, they aren't likely to burn up player options, moving guys back and forth. A lot will depend on starters going deep into games. Perhaps 4-6 weeks into the season, they'll know what they can do. As for what they'll do for the playoffs......lets get to them first. Jack is a smart man, and isn't going to pin himself into a corner with these kind of signings. It might not even be firstbase that they're worried about. When we get to a position at the trading deadline, then you assess your needs, if you think the playoffs are possible. |
| 86. By: DMac33 on 02-01-2010 16:16:52 My point Edman is that there isn't anything that you can change with traveling by being a West Coast team. It is what it is ... The part of using a platoon that I agree with more than anything else is that it keeps everybody sharp and ready to go. That's clearly important over the course of 162 games. The difficult part of that though is what do you do when you get to 2 weeks left in the season and in a pennant race or you are playing in the postseason. Do you change your strategy of what got you there versus playing your best players? I don't think relying on platoons is the best way to go about things long-term ... but can be a great way to address short-term issues effectively. |
| 87. By: StandinPat on 02-01-2010 20:09:29 "Pat, name the last time Seattle (or any club, for that matter) broke camp with 11 pitchers. We don't know for sure that they won't, but it is safe to assume, they won't." Ed, name the difference between something being a possibility, but not a probability and it being an option as, I stated. In no way shape or form did I insinuate any sort of odds that the M's would break camp with 11 pitchers, but simply that they could. Which is a fact. "And, they aren't likely to burn up player options, moving guys back and forth." Are you aware how options work? Every player on the 40 man who doesn't break camp on the 25 man automatically burns an option, so calling them up and sending them doesn't burn any additional options. As far as any pitcher they might send down, when was the last time a team went through an entire season with only the pitchers they broke camp with? Last year the M's used 20 pitchers, the year before 22, and 23 in 2007. So in other words, shuffling pitchers back and forth is nothing new and is a certainty to happen anyway. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox |