Prospect Insider - M's, Tigers talking three-way deal

M's, Tigers talking three-way deal

By Jason A. Churchill

By 11-19-2009

I have heard from several media sources today that the Seattle Mariners may very well be deep into talks with the Detroit Tigers and one other club in a three-way trade scenario that would send right-hander Edwin Jackson to Seattle and Brandon Morrow either to Detroit, or the unknown third team.

I don't have any other details at this time, but this is certainly an interesting deal, since a Morrow-for-Jackson swap seems to help Seattle more than it does Detroit, at least on the field.

It would save Detroit some money, though, since Morrow isn't arbitration eligible until after next season and Jackson is eligible for the second time this winter after making $2.2 million in 2009.

Not sure how I feel about this trade, because dealing Morrow right now is likely to be selling low, but despite his second-half struggles last summer, Jackson is much better bet to perform in 2010 than is Morrow.

We'll see how this one plays out before critiquing, of course, but it's very interesting, and a very real possibility.

m\'s,-tigers-talking-three-way-deal

Comments
The following 111 comment(s) for this article are shown below:

1. By: shemberry on 11-19-2009 11:58:02
I wonder how many players this trade might include. I would be surprised to see this be a 3 player 3 team swap. Most likely there would be multiple players involved, both leaving Seattle and coming to Seattle.

I like Morrow, but a bird(Jackson) in the hand is worth two(Morrow's potential) in the bush.

2. By: bumkus on 11-19-2009 12:03:03
Morrow for Jackson is pretty straightforward to evaluate, so the real skinny is going to be what other players are involved. Too much to hope for, but Miguel Cabrera would look good in a Mariners uniform.

3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 12:04:59
Why would you be surprised to see that it turns out to be a three-way deal?

If Jack values Jackson more than Morrow, and Detroit sees Morrow's potential and salary as equal to or greater value than Jackson's for 2010+, they'd make the deal today.

Clearly that isn't the case, so a third team gets involved so Seattle and Detroit can both get what they want.

I'd bet the farm that Jack is asking Dave about both Scott Sizemore and Cale Iorg (who I don't like to hit) and Jose Lopez's name is certainly coming out of Seattle's mouth.

4. By: shemberry on 11-19-2009 12:06:17
Sorry, what I meant was that I don't think there will only be 3 total players involved. Each of the 3 teams will probably give up more than just one player.

5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 12:12:35
Hearing the third team has changed since talks started, or that there may be more than one scenario that could involved one of multiple other clubs. One of them is Tampa.

6. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 12:22:39
Wow. If Jack can pull it off, he's a pretty damn good wheeler-dealer. Multiple team trades aren't easy. Trying to get everyone lined up and on the same page is extremely difficult. Last year's deal with NY and Cleveland is all Jack. Neither of the other two GMs have shown any ability to be that creative.

7. By: John_S on 11-19-2009 12:24:28
Lets say Lopez is included. Do you think the M's would have to kick in some money even though is salary is pretty reasonable considering that the Tigers are looking to cut salary?

8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 12:25:50
It really depends on who else is involved. If the trade nets the Tigers something they'd otherwise have to spend money on, I can't imagine any cash being attached. Jackson leaving saves them money as it is.

9. By: Captain Poopy on 11-19-2009 12:31:19
Jason -

I heard some rumors that Yankees are making Swisher available. Does it make sense for the M's to look into him as a 1B/DH candidate? If so, what would it cost us in terms of prospects?

10. By: 01v-dubs on 11-19-2009 12:31:43
I'm lukewarm on this trade, I know Jackson is likely to be better then Morrow next year, but Morrow still has a chance to turn into something very good. Plus, Jackson took a nosedive at the end of last year, but if Z thinks he can pitch like he did in the first half of last year all season then I wouldn't lament the trade

Jason, have you heard anything else on the LF situation for next year? Possible trade targets?

11. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 12:36:30
I just wrote that rumor at ESPN, Captain. It might make some sense, yeah, but Swisher is making almost 16 mil over the next two years. The club may be able to do better.

dubs, don't be lukewarm when you don't know what the trade is.

12. By: 01v-dubs on 11-19-2009 12:38:18
True Jason, I guess I just mistakenly forgot it would not only be Morrow for Jackson, it all depends on the other players involved

13. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 12:41:23
Edwin Jackson and Felix Hernandez at one time were talked about with similar accolades. Trading Jackson for Morrow, regardless of Brandon's ceiling, is pretty much a wash, with the exception that Jackson is closer to taking the next big leap.

I don't want to trade Morrow, either. But, Jackson is worth the gamble. He could be making the same transition that Felix made a couple years back.

Morrow provides you some monetary relief that Jackson doesn't. But, the M's have the room for a little extra payroll. I agree with Jason, the exchange for monetary relief should counter Jackson's being major league ready.

As far as his second half goes, it's a risk. But, Morrow's becoming a true major league pitcher isn't any less a risk.

14. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 12:43:26
I'm right there, too, dubs, I want to hate the idea of trading Morrow when his value isn't very high, despite the risk that it won't get better to the level where his arbitration status doesn't suppress any progress he does make in 2010.

But we have to wait.

15. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 12:43:51
Jason, has there been any talk of who Tampa Bay is targeting or could be sending in a three-way deal?

16. By: 01v-dubs on 11-19-2009 12:45:31
Good points Edman, I now see this possible deal more rationally, my first post was just a kneejurk reaction, but like Jason said we have to wait to see the entire deal before having any legitimate feelings about it.

17. By: Lonnie on 11-19-2009 12:49:07
I spent some time going over some games that Jackson pitched in during last season to get a feel for him. Here's my observations that I posted at another site:

"- In the first half of the season he was able to paint the black quite often, but still uncorked a wild one on occasion.
- Jackson, when it is working, has a very nasty slider coming in around 90 mph.
- Jackson tends to throw his changeup high
- Jackson's curve ball doesn't have much of a break and is rather mushy

Here's what I saw in the second half:
- Wildness got worse as the season progressed
- Often didn't get close calls because of early game wildness
- Slider wilted on him, but when it worked it was still nasty
- Lost ~5 mph on FB late in games
- Didn't seem to lose his composure when things went bad

Something that an announcer said piqued my curiosity. I guess when the first half was over they had a meeting to figure out what was working and what wasn't. It was determined that Jackson was throwing too many pitches early in games and the plan was to try to pitch to contact more.

One other thing that I saw that has me scratching my head is that he has a pitch that comes in like a FB but it runs in on right-handed batters. I saw this pitch maybe two or three times in each game. It might just be an artifact of poor command, but it should be something that he works on as it was a nasty pitch."

Lonnie

18. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 12:51:20
I haven't heard any names from Tampa, Ed. We can speculate Brignac or prospects or Aybar, which I already have at the four-letter.

19. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 12:56:42
Jackson's workload concerns drove the pitch count concerns more than anything. He'd never thrown that many innings, and the second half dive wasn't a huge surprise.

He's a decent option at No. 3 or 4.

20. By: Fireballer55 on 11-19-2009 13:06:50
Hey Jason, do you see a Jackson trade as something that will prevent a Lackey signing? Or could we get both? Also, any word or rumors for a LF or any bats?

21. By: kyle_mahlstedt on 11-19-2009 13:22:36
Jason,

Do you think the trade could include Crawford or Upton coming to Seattle?

What would Detroit be netting in the trade besides Morrow? Lopez? Saunders?

22. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 13:23:24
Personally, I don't see acquiring Jackson changes the Lackey situation, if it actually exists. Jackson is not an equivalent catch to adding Jackson.

I'm not that convinced that Lackey is as big a target as some are speculating.

23. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 13:24:33
kyle, if you were Tampa Bay's GM, would you trade Crawford or Upton? I wouldn't, unless it was in a mega-deal.

24. By: kyle_mahlstedt on 11-19-2009 13:25:19
they do have an excess of outfielders... thats why I asked...

25. By: hawks02 on 11-19-2009 13:26:36
Jason, What is the skill set comparison between a guy like Sizemore and Lopez, obviously Lopez is more hitter than fielder but how does Sizemore compare. Also, what do you think it would take to land Swisher?

26. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 13:28:49
They may have excess outfielders, but I doubt that they'd give up either Crawford or Upton. They are pretty big pieces that relate to their future.

27. By: chris11c on 11-19-2009 13:46:06
I have a feeling that Lopez is involved somehow. The Tigers aren't going to resign Polanco and I heard that there were some possible set backs with Sizemore. So this might be a blockbuster.

28. By: acqb1424 on 11-19-2009 14:27:58
Any chance Granderson is involved with this? Is Jackson a clear cut upgrade over Morrow? What is his long term potential?

29. By: Lonnie on 11-19-2009 14:43:41
acqb1424 sez:
"Any chance Granderson is involved with this? Is Jackson a clear cut upgrade over Morrow? What is his long term potential?"

If I may weigh in, after watching Jackson pitch I'd have to say that yes, he is an upgrade to Morrow. I have to add the caveat though that this "upgrade" is in the here and now.

Whether or not Morrow actually takes his game to his potential is a crapshoot if you ask me. Personally, I don't give him much of a chance to "put it together", and part of the reason is because he was never allowed any quality time in the minors to hone his skills.

Jackson, where his game is right now, is better than Morrow's. Yes, Jackson is not perfect, but I believe that he can be a very servicable #3 or even #2 in our rotation.

Lonnie

30. By: acqb1424 on 11-19-2009 15:05:57
I wouldn't mind getting Jackson for Morrow, I just want to hear the other names, especially if Lopez is being tossed out there. I'm not sure about Granderson, just because I'd personally rather spend the money on a true power bat. Now, if the M's wanted to go for broke and blow up the budget and still bring power bats to go with a Granderson type of player I would be all for it.

31. By: studentofthegame on 11-19-2009 15:17:05
It is kind of interesting to think that the M's may be trading Brandon Morrow to the (presumably) Tigers for Edwin Jackson. I am amused that on this day Tim Lincecum has won his second straight Cy Young award, and we are debating a trade involving the guy we took instead.

I think Jackson has a lot to offer, and maybe Adair can further realize his potential. We shall see what the outcome is, assuming that anything actually happens.

I love that fact that Z is being aggressive prior to the winter meetings. Perhaps this is a sign that big sparks will fly in December.

32. By: rjfrik on 11-19-2009 15:21:31
You are not going to trade Morrow and Lopez for Jackson. Morrow and Jackson are almost a straight swap trade. If Lopez is involved then another big piece is coming back Seattle's way. That's the mystery.

33. By: Docmilo on 11-19-2009 15:39:54
So the rumors are that it's three way. Rumors also say Detroit and Tampa both need to dump salary. The names associated with salary in Tampa are Pena and Crawford.

Could the M's be after Crawford and what would that cost?

34. By: acqb1424 on 11-19-2009 15:54:12
If Crawford and Pena are available, which one would be the better fit for the M's? I would almost lean toward Pena due to the need at 1B and the power. If I'm not mistaken they are both FA after the season, so which one will help more in 2010 and would either of them be likely to resign?

35. By: randallball on 11-19-2009 15:54:13
I would think Pena is a much more likely $ dump than Crawford.

36. By: The Great Pumpkin on 11-19-2009 15:54:28
COuld they be after Pena?

37. By: FWBrodie on 11-19-2009 16:06:29
(Speculation) Pena is Branyan, but 4 years younger and a little bit better on-base skills. So the question is what would Pena offer the M's that is worth giving up something in a trade? Health? Team control? Not exactly sure what Pena's situation is contractually speaking. Can anyone shed some light?

38. By: randallball on 11-19-2009 16:08:36
2010 will be the last year of a 3-year/$24.125m contract for Pena (@ $10,250,000).

39. By: FWBrodie on 11-19-2009 16:32:22
If that's the case, I doubt it's Pena.

40. By: Lonnie on 11-19-2009 16:45:19
Just did a little research and it looks like the Rays are in the market for a catcher and some late inning relief help.

Aardsma or Lowe or Kelley may be gone by tomorrow.

Interestingly, late inning relief is also high on Detroit's wishlist.

Hmmmm...

Lonnie

41. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 16:48:41
Lowe or Kelley, perhaps. Aardsma holds too much value right now, especially after reading Wak's comments regarding the potential to win 112 games, if they were able to hold on to a save.

42. By: Slurve on 11-19-2009 17:00:42
That wasn't Waks comment that was Larue I think and it's considered a "blown save" if the game is tied anytime after the SP leaves. So it wasn't a bunch of blown saves in the 9th inning it was a bunch of games that were tied up in the later innings that we ended up winning or losing later.

43. By: Docmilo on 11-19-2009 17:15:16
"If that's the case, I doubt it's Pena."
I wasn't thinking Pena, either. I don't know if Tampa has anything behind him in their system ready to go. The Rays do have a young OF prospect, Desmond Jennings, who may be ready to go. I would guess any deal between the M's and Rays regarding Crawford would include Saunders.

Aardsma/Saunders for Crawford?

44. By: FWBrodie on 11-19-2009 17:45:00
Well it's a 3-way deal so where does Detroit factor into that? I would assume Morrow would be going to Tampa and Jackson to Seattle and that's probably where you should start.

45. By: yohnhimself on 11-19-2009 18:21:14
Edwin Jackson is a Tiger. That is how Detroit factors in.

46. By: FWBrodie on 11-19-2009 18:43:20
Thanks genius. Look at the previous post.

47. By: Edman on 11-19-2009 21:55:31
Slurve, I understand how a save works. The point is, Wak made a point to say that those were games that could have made a big difference in the season record.

I don't recall saying anything about a particular inning. Just that he realizes the importance of closing out games. There was far more than the ninth inning to be concerned about. But, moving Aardsma creates another hole. Perhaps when Fields and/or Aumont are ready, they might consider a move in that direction. But, I doubt they feel comfortable enough to let Aardsma go at this point.

And, other than here in Seattle, I'm not sure that Aardsma is that big a chip. He's got to demonstrate that he can repeat, before he's going to have any real trade value.

48. By: rocketdawg31 on 11-19-2009 22:41:34

I agree that Aardsma isn't a huge chip right now.

In this day and age, you can easily wind up with some guy who's been toiling in the bushes in AA-ball, winds up making the team, circumstances necessitate him closing out a few games, and next thing ya know...the guy who was previously unknown/borderline big-leaguer is among the ML leaders in saves for a year.

What Aardsma brings to the table is very, very replaceable...about as easy to find around the league as any commodity. Ipso facto, he isn't a huge enticement in trade scenarios.

But he still qualifies as an interesting piece for a team to potentially acquire- with a better track record now than what he had before.

Regarding Edwin Jackson? Well, he's an interesting cat. But, it's probably the better part of wisdom to avoid getting all giddy or deflated until something actually happens.

(I say that knowing damn well I'll rosterbate in my head all night...)

These rumors are now enough to have me check the "four-letter".com every hour on the hour.

Hot Stove's begun! And with all this rain and wind creating all kinds of unpleasant stuff to deal with, the timing couldn't be better.

49. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-19-2009 23:37:52
Some of you are missing the boat on Aardsma. He's not just like all the other good closers on the market -- Soriano, Gonzalez, Jenks (trade), Valverde, etc...

He doesn't come with a big salary, a long commitment, nor pending free agency that would make him a one-year rental.

So, while he's not going to fetch an impact bat all by himself, Aardsma is a pretty valuable piece to a trade, if offered.

50. By: Docmilo on 11-20-2009 10:30:05
I find it humorous that people think that you can just pull any arm out off AA/AAA/AAAA or the independant leagues and plug him/her in as a closer.

Sure, you can fill in, not construct entirely, a bull pen with an arm or two like that a year. But, you better have a dozen or so of those types of arms to shuffle thru until you find that diamond in the pot of spagetti.

If anyone could close then teams wouldn't be paying the big bucks on a regular basis and Billy Beane wouldn't be trading his closers off regularly for a boat load of specs.

Aardsma is now a bonafide closer and that has value. He's not a set up man. He's not a 7th or 8th inning guy. He's the DA.

Does that mean he's going to get Crawford by himself? Heck no. But since he's cheap, still under team control and the man he has a little more value than just another bull pen arm.

If the M's, by themselves or with Detroit, can find enough pieces that Tampa values, then Aardsma may be a large piece of the puzzle. I have the feeling that the GM's of these teams are comfortable with each other and know each others organizations pretty well. The rumor was the M's were after Jackson last year. Well, that means both GM's should be quite familiar with the other's minor leagues.

51. By: Tommyo on 11-20-2009 11:29:23
I'd take Jackson over Morrow in a minute.
Morrow's potential is a soild 2 but, his development has been severly set back. Not to say he can't breakout in '11. He is a sell low player and that is scary.

I agree with Lonnie (#40), we can deal from an area of strength and sell high on D.A or Lowe and make this a blockbuster three teamer. D.A and Lowe will never be better or net us more in return.

Jason,
What could Morrow, Saunders, Lopez and D.A net us in a Det/TB three way?
Jackson, Crawford, Brignac, +

52. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 12:00:42
I seriously doubt TB goes for that, despite me having no idea who you intend TB to end up with in return.

TB has outfielders -- Saunders has very little value to them.

Where does Lopez play for TB? He must be headed to Detroit.

Morrow and DA? DA makes some sense for TB, Morrow really does not, as they have flamethrowing projects of their own.

What does Detroit have available that TB would part with Crawford over?

53. By: frontstreetfan on 11-20-2009 12:14:19
Jason, It seems to me we need a number 2 and 3 starter plus a solid yet productive left fielder and a solid 2nd baseman. I've thought D. DeJesus was a very good fit for our team for quite some time. If we can somehow acquire DeJesus and perhaps B. Philips at 2nd plus E. Jackson via trade along with a FA starter that would a huge jump. Any chance KC parts with DeJesus? He's got one more yr and then an option yr in 2011 going to be 30 in Dec. and in my opinion an excellent fit in LF until Ackley is ready plus he can sub in CF.

54. By: safecochatter on 11-20-2009 12:16:35
as long as we're having fun with the three way let's do this.
to detroit: Morrow and Lopez
to tampa: Saunders,Aardsma,and Kelly
coming back: jackson,crawford,brignac,and aybar.
Detroit would be sending a piece to tampa also.

55. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 12:18:09
DeJesus... ugh. There's a chance that the M's have better options in-house, considering the salary and trade cost it would take.

If Saunders isn't the main guy in left in 2010, he who is had better be a significant upgrade that doesn't cost the club young talent in return. DeJesus would be nice, but not for $5 million bucks and trade bait.

Brandon Phillips is one of the top few 2B in baseball. If the M's are in the running for him -- if he's even available, which I doubt seriously, it'd cost Morrow, Triunfel, perhaps Saunders or Tui, and then some.

56. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 12:19:58
So Tampa trades an all-star left fielder, one of the best utility bats in baseball and a cheap, promising infielder who may profile at shortstop for two relievers and a prospect that'd rank third among other OF prospects in their system?

No. The piece from Detroit better be Miguel Cabrera.

57. By: Docmilo on 11-20-2009 12:45:11
Tampa has Jennings coming up, Joyce and Gross in RF. Saunders could still have value if Joyce doesn't cut the mustard. Jennings, Upton, Saunders (RF) could have the potential for a nice OF trio.

58. By: Edman on 11-20-2009 12:57:55
If I've got Gross, Joyce and Jennings, why do I need Saunder?

59. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 11-20-2009 13:04:18
To Detroit; Lopez, Saunders, Morrow, Sonnanstine, White/Kelly

To Tampa; Granderson, Lowe, White/Kelly

To Seattle; Crawford, Jackson, Aybar

Saves millions for Detroit and Tampa. If Tampa decides to trade Upton, Granderson can play center. I could see Tampa wanting the second reliever to have more upside and holding out for Aumont or Fields. Maybe Detroit wants another young outfielder from Tampa in lieu of Sonnanstine.

60. By: Adam T on 11-20-2009 13:32:32
Jason - have you heard anything about interest in Granderson or is it just limited to Jackson?

If the price for Jackson is Morrow, you do the deal. Jackson isn't any great shakes, but Morrow hasn't yet shown he'll even reach Jackson's current level. And it's not like Jackson is in his 30's, either. Could Jackson regress? Sure. But I like his chances of repeating 2009 better than I do of Morrow reaching that level.

I have a name out of left field - Alex Gordon. Dayton Moore has said that even though they acquired Josh Fields, Gordon is their 3B. I'm not sure I buy that. Further, it appears the Royals are going to let Alberto Callaspo walk. So what if we offered Jose Lopez plus for Gordon? I'd much rather have Gordon than Tui at 3B. Lopez plus a prospect could possibly get it done, although I readily admit we have no idea how much Moore values Gordon.

Then sign Kelly Johnson to play 2B (if and when he's non-tendered) and away we go.

61. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 13:50:43
For the record, I would NOT pull the trigger on Jackson-Morrow, if that's all the trade entails.

Jackson had one really good half-season of baseball, and the millions are all over him as a frontline guy? The stuff is there, the head, command and delivery are not.

If the two pitchers were in similar stages of their development, I'd go Jackson, because there's a good chance Jackson outperforms Morrow in 2010.

But that's not the case, and there's also a chance the Morrow we saw glimpses of in September is what the M's would see enough of in 2010 for him to be the better pitcher, too. You have to look past 2010, even though it's not like Jackson has a HUGE advantage over a 2010 Morrow that goes 170 innings of league-average pitching --- Jackson has done that or better for exactly HALF of a season.

Trading upside for a more expensive option of so-called performance certainty, which is a total joke with Jackson, doesn't make any sense for a team trying to build a sustainable winner.

Gordon is their 3B in KC... Fields hasn't proven anything, and may be a better fit in left field anyway, which is why DeJesus could be traded.

And no, Lopez+ does not get that deal done. Moore knows that if he deals Gordon and he moves on and blossoms, he'll be shredded, and rightfully so.

KC isn't giving up on Gordon yet, so the only way they deal him is if they get more than equal value, due to Gordon's chances to break through at a high level.

62. By: Adam T on 11-20-2009 14:36:45
I'm not calling Jackson a front-line guy. I don't even think what we saw in the first half of 2009 is the real Edwin Jackson. I do think, however, that he's better than what we saw in the second half. Even then, his K rate and BB rate were better than career averages. Further, he's got an impressive record of cutting down his walk rate over the past four years.

In short, he's making real progress. And I don't see a move for Jackson being one simply for "performance certainty" (although, as you mention, there is a good chance Jackson outperforms Morrow in 2010). Jackson's career profile shows real improvement that would make him a worthwhile acquisition with an eye towards the future, beyond 2010.

Again, he's may not be the pitcher he was in the first half of 2009, but I don't believe he's the same guy he was in the second half, either (taking into account that was the most innings he's ever thrown in a season).

As for Morrow, did those brief glimpes in late 2009 really change your opinion of him? I recall you being pretty hard on Morrow and his lack of development when he came back up late in the year.

Do you think Morrow's upside outweighs the gap in "performance certainty" between the two?

63. By: hardball24 on 11-20-2009 15:16:44
Jason, if you had to make a guess the players involved in the deal and where they're going, what would it be?

64. By: hardball24 on 11-20-2009 15:17:41
"where they would be going" is more appropriate

65. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 15:34:03
Adam,

You're basing Jackson's progress on one half season. Seriously, that's your argument. I'm not asking, because what you just posted is unmistakable.

And the reason why Jackson isn't a certain value past 2010 isn't just because he might be mediocre on the mound. He's also going to get really expensive. No need to pay more than one mediocre pitcher more money than he's worth.

As for Morrow, he's still cheap, further away from free agency, and even his biggest detractors, those TEs that tell me they'd trade for him as a relief option, not a starter, say his upside is still pretty high and that Jackson can't be trusted.

There are obviously more players involved in this scenario, or there wouldn't be three teams reportedly involved, but unless Seattle is getting more than Jackson for Morrow, I'm holding off.

Participate in a little exercise for me Adam. In your next reply, post the median seasons you believe can be reasonably expected from Jackson and Morrow for 2010 and 2011 both.

66. By: randallball on 11-20-2009 16:16:59
Jakubauskas (Pirates) and Robert Manual (Red Sox) claimed today.

That sucks.

67. By: Fireballer55 on 11-20-2009 16:21:26
Hey Jason, just saw your note that Chris was claimed...how? Did we take him on the 40 man roster? Was he placed on waivers?

68. By: Adam T on 11-20-2009 16:24:54
Jason -

First of all, I'm not trying to get into a contentious debate here. Just to put that on the table.

Second, my argument that Jackson has improved is NOT based on a half-season's worth of performance. As I stated, Jackson's walk rate has improved every year since 2006. And that's as his innings have increased. I'm no expert on Jackson's career, but I've followed him to one extent or another since LA. And I'm fairly confident that his greatest drawback has been command. You mention it as well.

I understand that you can't rest an entire decision about a pitcher's worth on one stat alone, such as BB/9.

I will note, however, that Jackson's improvement hasn't come at the expense of missing bats. There's no correlation between control and missed bats in his peripheral stats, so he isn't sacrificing Ks. His K/9 last year was in line with his career numbers, down from 2007 and up from 2008.

Finally, as for expected median seasons:

2010:

Jackson: 210 IP, 170 K, 65 BB, 215 H
Morrow: 140 IP, 110 K, 70 BB, 145 H

2011:

Jackson: 220 IP, 180 K, 75 BB, 220 H
Morrow: 180 IP, 160 K, 90 BB, 200 H

I think Morrow's control issues are much more of a problem than Jackson's. Jackson is farther along in his development, yes. And he's more expensive. Points taken. But he's still just 26, he's showing real improvement in an important area of his development, and is more likely to be a solid contributor in the rotation than Morrow at this point.

69. By: rjfrik on 11-20-2009 16:25:06
Jason,

40 man rosters had to be turned in today. Is there a site that we can go to to find out who is on and off 40 man rosters around the league? Or is that information only shared through GM and MLB offices?

I would like to see who is going to be available for the Rule 5.

thanks

70. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 17:21:05
Do you know how many pitchers improve their walks rates for 2-4 years in a row? A lot. And how hard is it to improve upon 6.2 and 4.9 BB/9 numbers? C'mon, you'll have to do better than that.

Did he take a step forward in terms of throwing strikes? Yes. Has he gotten better between the trade that brought him to Detroit? Seems he has, at least a little bit.

But he's never going to be a guy with even average command and control from year to year, so despite the raw stuff of a No. 1-2 guy, he's a middle rotation guy that's getting expensive. Last year was the year to get Jackson, not this year, not for Morrow.

Let's look at your projections.

Jackson: 210 IP, 170 K, 65 BB, 215 H
So you're basically expecting him to be as much the guy he was April-June last year as the July-September guy. Based on what? Why should anyone believe that the latest half of baseball, which eerily like that of his first 450+ innings of his career, was the fluke?

I don't think those numbers are ridiculous, but I wouldn't be quite so optimistic, especially on innings and baserunners.

Morrow: 140 IP, 110 K, 70 BB, 145 H
Morrow is a tough one to project because he's been jerked around so much we really don't know what to expect from him as a starter. One thing I feel good about saying is that he's not ever going to be a 220-inning starter, and it's a good bet to project him under 190 innings in 2010. But I think projecting just a 20-inning increase in workload is highly unreasonable, considering he'd be heading into the season as a starting pitcher when he spent more than half of 2009 in relief.

He'll walk guys, and struggle at times, but there are lot of promising signs that starting agrees with Morrow.

1. His control numbers, and overall command, has been better as a starter than as a reliever
2. While the improvements to those numbers aren't huge (half a walk per 9, 54.3% strikes versus 52.5% strikes), he's shown markedly improved trends the longer he's remained a starter. Meaning, in start five, six and seven, he was better than in starts 1-3, etc.
3. We're still talking about a pitcher with a good curveball, split, four-seam combo, that has yet to get the work to polish them off, and starting, as well as staying in the same role in the rotation, is the biggest and best thing for him.

2011 --
Jackson: 220 IP, 180 K, 75 BB, 220 H
Morrow: 180 IP, 160 K, 90 BB, 200 H

That's pretty darn close, though the numbers I should have asked for were FIP and HR/9 as well as baserunners and innings. And you're all of sudden expecting Jackson to be a horse. Absurd. Absolutely absurd.

But let's put salaries and trade costs on those now.

Jackson made more than 2 mil a year ago, is probably due twice that in '10 and more than twice that in '11 for a two-year total of about 15 million before he's a free agent.

Morrow is due about 500-600k in 2010, and we'll overestimate his first-year arby total to be about $2 mil (he's spent most of his service time in relief, which will hurt his arby bargaining power), and we'll double that for 2012 to be 4+ mil.

You'd rather pay about 15 mil for two years of Jackson's 400ip of league-average pitching instead of about 6.5 mil for THREE years of Morrow, whose extra year could easily surprass Jackson's total two-year value to the team, even if all he does is repeat YOUR '11 numbers for him in 2012.

Preferring Jackson is preposterous.

Now, if other players are coming in and going out, I can be swayed and the situation may very well benefit Seattle in a Morrow-Jackson swap.

But you see why Jackson is more a short-term upgrade versus long term? Which do you think is more likely to re-sign to stay here, too? If any, it's Morrow, being a west coast guy and someone who's spent his career in Seattle through his six years.

Good chance Jackson is two-and-gone.

The upside of Jackson is that he'll probably be better in 2010 than Morrow, but for me to pull the plug on Morrow, the arm coming back has to be much, much more reliable, or he better be under club control for longer than two years.

71. By: rjfrik on 11-20-2009 17:32:19
So did a quick recon of some notables left off some teams 40 man rosters. I could only find Marlins, Indians, Twins, Texans, Reds articles that stated notables left off.

The names that jump out at me are Yohan Pino and Steven Wright from Indians and Chad Tracy from the Rangers.

Guys like Jon Raynor and Graham Taylor from Marlins, Santos Arias from Twins and Wilkin Castillo from Reds are a little intriguing as well.

It will be exciting to see all the teams list and I'm sure someone at ESPN will do a top ten list of the available Rule 5 guys.

What do you think of Pino, Wright or Tracy? If Tracy was a LH bat I would be really intrigued anyone who can jack 27HR's and over 100RBI's in AA seems like he knows how to handle the stick. I like Pino and think he could be a big time sleeper.

72. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 17:55:57
I looked at the top rule 5 prospects and found nobody interesting enough to write up before hand.

It's not exactly FREE talent.

73. By: sg9207 on 11-20-2009 17:56:54
Very well said JAC.

Who do you see as having a more successful career, RRS or Morrow?

74. By: FWBrodie on 11-20-2009 18:04:41
Jason, I know I've asked you about Scott Sizemore before (specifically is he ready for the show, you said yes), but with the M's talking to Detroit again I was wondering if you could go into a bit more detail. Did you get to see him in Arizona much before the injury? What's your take on him both as a hitter and a second baseman?

75. By: littlelinny6 on 11-20-2009 19:06:34
Jason,
Baker is reporting that the M's are going to try Ackley as a 2B in Spring Training. I thought you said this was a bad idea? Zdurenciek says it is not a final.

"We are not etching this into stone to say this guy will be the second baseman of the future,'' Zduriencik said. "It's just something we do.''

Zduriencik says having Ackley work out at the position now will give the team a better idea of where he stands coming into spring training. If things keep progressing, they will continue to look at him at that spot.

What do you make of this?? Does this make any sense at all for the M's either near or long term?? I'm just wondering if you had heard any inkling this was going to happen.

Thanks for your great work.

76. By: pwhit44 on 11-20-2009 19:14:56
I think Ackley at 2B is the best idea, and I think it makes sense long term, even if they keep Lopez. We need LF open for a big power hitter. Ackley is unlikely to provide that, at least in the near term.

If Ackley can make the transition quickly, you can move Lopez to 3B. Still room for power at 1B, DH, and LF.

77. By: Edman on 11-20-2009 19:20:41
It's not unusual to look at players in spring training, to see if they have skills that would give them flexability to move to other positions.

This means little, linny. Finding out if he has the skills to play secondbase won't impede his progress as a centerfielder. And, they may discover he could possibly be a good investment at secondbase.

It's like your boss giving you expanded duties, to see if you could handle other work in the office.

78. By: Fireballer55 on 11-20-2009 19:28:00
While I agree with you Edman, It does seem to be a bit weird of a time. With the rumors of a three way trade(Im hoping a way for Carl Crawford...I know unrealistic) and spring training being far away. Was it for winter ball to play down there?

79. By: Captain Poopy on 11-20-2009 20:23:14
I would have to think with Ackley trying out at 2B means that they might possibly be very serious about saying "Goodbye" to Lopez. I'm thinking the Detroit deal might have legs, but instead of Jackson, maybe Granderson. Or the three way deal for both Jackson and Crawford might just make sense. Otherwise, GMZ would be keeping Ackley in the OF, or at least that's what would make sense to me.

80. By: FWBrodie on 11-20-2009 20:28:17
How does Carl Crawford make any sense for the Mariners? One year of Crawford at the ransom the Rays are going to charge in a deal? Granderson makes some sense because he'd be around for a few years, but Crawford would be a poor use of resources in my opinion even as talented as he is.

Moving Ackley to second would maximize his value to the organization. It's worth a shot if they see enough athleticism in him to believe he may be able to handle it, which they obviously do. Maybe he tries it out, they don't like what they see, and he moves back to the outfield. Not too big of deal I don't think.

81. By: FWBrodie on 11-20-2009 20:32:08
Why would Crawford be even slightly related to Ackley moving to second base?

Am I wrong or is Crawford entering his final year of team control?

82. By: CrustyJuggler on 11-20-2009 20:39:33
Crawford and Granderson are very similar but even though I like Crawford better, I'd take Granderson given the choice. Crawford will undoubtedly bolt after 2010 where as Granderson is under contract until, potentially, 2012.

83. By: Captain Poopy on 11-20-2009 20:41:49
You're correct Brodie about Crawford entering the last year of team control. Or so I've read.

It's related because it either shows that GMZ is making headway to Ackley on the team sooner. I just think this means that they'll be looking for a LFer now and that he has one in his sights. To me, a winning ball club doesn't have Saunders (or at least last year's version) in LF. And they want to have Ackley up soon, thus leaving a spot open in LF. That makes me believe it's left for Ganderson, Crawford - or - a much improve, Saunders.

Probably didn't make sense, sorry... just trying to write while watching my baby. Tough to do.

84. By: FWBrodie on 11-20-2009 21:08:27
The scenario I could invision where movig Ackley to second and it would be a bad thing is if Ackley is just good enough where they decide to keep him there longer to see if he can improve and he ends up topping out as a below average defender there having wasted a year trying to learn second base instead of improving as an outfielder. He could end up spending more time than needed in the minor leagues trying to catch up as an OF. On the flip side, maybe he could then serve as an emergency second baseman in a pinch.

85. By: Adam T on 11-20-2009 22:26:23
Do you know how many pitchers improve their walks rates for 2-4 years in a row? A lot. And how hard is it to improve upon 6.2 and 4.9 BB/9 numbers? C'mon, you'll have to do better than that.

Yeesh, tough crowd. He's a guy who came up with serious questions about command, and he's now improved his walk rates each of the last three years. That may be mere chance, but I'm willing to bet that he's putting some things together. Will he ever be Greg Maddux? No. But those improving rates are nothing but positive.

As for what he's worth - if we double his salary each of the next two years, it's 4.4 and 8.8 - or 13.2 million. His performance this year ALONE was worth $16 million, per Fangraphs. So yes, if he improves MODESTLY (he was better in the first half of 2009 than those numbers) over the next two years, as my "projections" suggest, he'll be well worth the money.

And it most certainly is not absurd to see Jackson becoming a "horse" and pitching 220 innings in 2011. The 2011 numbers I proposed are pretty reasonable guesses, providing he even remains consistent in his walk rates, with a modest uptick in Ks.

Fangraphs pegged Jackson at 3.5 wins this year. Even if he only repeats this year's performance (which is certainly possible if he has our OF behind him), that's seven wins over two years.

I have my doubts about whether Morrow can get seven wins in THREE years. I'm happy he finally has a single role (at least we think so...), and I'm positive that it will help his development. Nevertheless, this is a kid who's made all of 15 big-league starts.

It's too small of a sample size to decide that Morrow is better as a starter and that he'll continue to improve - especially considering the inconsistency he's shown so far.

And yes, I'd trade three seasons of Morrow for two seasons of Jackson. We really can't speculate whether Jackson is more likely to stay in Seattle than Morrow. Maybe Jackson loves it here, maybe Morrow gets a great offer from a Bay Area team after 2012.

In short - Jackson is more of a sure thing to me over the next two years that I'd rather have him around than Morrow for the next three.

86. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-20-2009 23:07:24
His fanGraphs value means ZILCH here, because the conversation we're having is Morrow v. Jackson, not whether Jackson's projected salaries are a value.

And you're betting on something that bad GMs bet on. Small sample sizes of numbers when the scouting doesn't match.

Good luck with that.

But I can guarantee you, as much as I am not a Zduriencik fanboy like too many of the fanatics around here, Jack is too smart to simply do a Morrow-Jackson swap.

87. By: Chris Crawford on 11-21-2009 02:23:53
Jackson for Morrow just doesn't make any sense to me. It screams selling low....Jackson had a nice year, but Morrow is far too talented to just do a straight swap.

I think people tend to look at some of the players drafted after Morrow and turn him into Sam Bowie. He's not. He is a very talented, hard thrower with movement and not a whole lot of command. People can improve command, they can't gain out pitches. Selling low on him is a mistake.

88. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 11-21-2009 03:33:16
Jason, I was wondering about your feelings on the Ackley news? To me it smacks of the mishandling of Morrow and just doesn't make sense.

89. By: Slack on 11-21-2009 10:31:04
It doesn't make sense to me either. I think it is just an experiment. If he shows aptitude for second base in spring training, maybe its a go.
But if the M's are serious about moving him to second base, it could hurt his bat and slow him down. One of Ackley's greatest assets is his potential to get to the big leagues quickly and I don't understand why anyone would risk tampering with that.
Like I said before, I bet its just an experiment.

90. By: Docmilo on 11-21-2009 11:33:44
Could Ackley's OF developement really be retarded by playing 2B for a season? If Adam Jones can be a MLB CFer after one season in AAA, or was it 2, I don't see how hard it would be for him to pick it up again at any time.

Did people complain about mishandling Adam Jones when they moved him to CF to get him to the big leagues faster?

I also don't think this move should have anything to do with Jose Lopez, trade rumors for an outfielder or anything else. If Ackley is more valuable to the organization playing a middle infield spot than the outfield, it would only make sense long term to give it a try.

91. By: Saltydawg05 on 11-21-2009 12:43:50
Slack this helps his ability to get to the big leagues quicker. The M's are set with Guti and Ichiro, and seem pretty content with Saunders. Futhermore it seems like an absolute certainty that Jose Lopez will not be on the opening day roster, so Ackley's best chance to get to the big leagues this year would seem to be at 2nd base.

92. By: M-Pops on 11-21-2009 13:36:27
Does anyone out there know anything about Detroit's young catcher Alex Avila? His bat looks solid, was wondering more about his D.

I floated this trade idea over at Proball, what do you guys think?

SEA = Crawford, Jackson
DET = Morrow, Saunders, Brignac
TB = Granderson, Alex Avila, Lowe, Aumont

93. By: d2ret on 11-21-2009 14:51:44
Thats not bad Pops. The Ms are getting the best talent back by a slight margin, but they are also taking on the most salary. Detroit's haul might be light though, IMO, for what they are giving up. I do wonder how much leverage the other two teams have, with Detroit trying to unload salary.

Its an interesting start to a deal, but I think if Detroit is going to give up Jackson, Granderson, and also Avila, then they most definately will require more, and it'll probably have to come from the Mariners side.

I think Granderson would mash at Tropicana though. And they have Righty platoons in the outfield if they are concerned about certain left handed matchups against him. On top of that, if they cant extend him by midseason, they will still be able to get a lot back in a trade at the deadline, and have Jennings ready to replace.

It actually makes a lot of sense IMO Pops. Not bad. Now I just cant wait for news to come, one way or the other, on this. Although it could be a while.

94. By: FWBrodie on 11-21-2009 15:13:46
There is no way JZ is dumb enough to give up all that talent for 1 year of Crawford and two years of a starter who's been terrible for 80% of his MLB career when he has the same guy with more upside and a fraction of the price in Morrow. The Mariners would have to get something more long-term back like a Scott Sizemore to justify a deal like that.

95. By: 01v-dubs on 11-21-2009 17:09:26
OT but, Jason have you seen how big Triunfel has gotten. I saw him in person last year at the AFL and on tv he looks about 20 pounds heavier now. Is that just a result of the layoff, or is he trying to bulk up?

96. By: jgstecker on 11-21-2009 17:48:59
I'm kind of excited that the M's are thinking about moving Ackley to 2B. The only way he makes sense as an outfielder is if Saunders doesn't work out, and I'm really hoping that's not the case. Ichiro isn't going anywhere until after 2012 at the earliest (if then) and while Gutierrez may get expensive, he'll still be a value buy through his arbitration years.

If Saunders shows in the first half of 2010 that he's not going to cut in LF it won't take long to switch Ackley back to the outfield.

This move might also signal a semi-permanent shift to 3B for Triunfel as well. The logical thing to me would be to shift Lopez to 3B for two years until Triunfel is ready. That opens up 2B for a stop-gap in 2010 where there are a lot of names out there that can help this club out, especially in the OBP department.

97. By: slamcactus on 11-21-2009 17:57:37
Domicilo: there's a pretty big difference between moving Ackley now and moving Jones to CF when they did. The public reason Jones was moved to CF was to get him to the majors with Yuni entrenched at SS, but scouts had looked at Jones and said he belonged in CF for years. Nobody not involved in PR at the Mariners really saw Jones as a major league shortstop. Ackley's different - I haven't really seen anything resembling consensus on where his defensive tools play best, but I also don't see any reason to believe he can't handle the OF.

98. By: slamcactus on 11-21-2009 18:01:33
96: the worst thing the organization could do is assign minor league positions based on projected need at the major league level. If scouts are right about Ackley, he could potentially handle all 3 OF positions, and a lot can happen that creates a need at any one of those spots between now and mid-2011. They might be trying to fast-track Ackley to the majors, but so far they're just saying they're working him out, they're not committing to him as a full-time 2B as far as I can tell. My guess is they're evaluating whether he can be a long-term answer there, and they'll make the final decision based on where in the field his tools play the best.

99. By: FWBrodie on 11-21-2009 18:50:11
95, I was shocked when I saw Truinfel today on TV too. I saw him hit that bomb in the AFL All-Star game a couple weeks ago, but seeing him next to the rest of the squad after the game today was the first time I could compare him physically to other players. Dude is huge now. I had no idea.

100. By: StandinPat on 11-21-2009 18:56:49
Switching a player to a position that he doesn't have much experience at, and that my prove to be a difficult transition, does not equal "fast tracking." I'm really not sure how that concept came about, but the only reason to make the switch is that his bat plays much better at 2B than in LF, and that you honestly feel he has the tools to succeed defensively there.

101. By: Docmilo on 11-21-2009 18:57:56
slamcactus, I wasn't one who said he couldn't cut the mustard in the OF. My line of thought was that he may have more value to the team at 2B with his offensive game. And, the fact that he is currently an OFer, he can be moved back at any time without loosing a step. If Ackley is more valuable as inventory in the 2B bin, why not store him there for the mean time?

102. By: slamcactus on 11-21-2009 19:34:03
I know you weren't Docmilo, I was just pointing out that Jones' tools played far better in the outfield, and scouts were saying so unanimously at the time. Despite what they were saying publicly, it wasn't so much a "fast track him to the majors" decision as it was a decision that was years in the making taken by a FO that was maddeningly slow to shake anything up whatsoever.

StandinPat: there's a much, much better reason to switch positions than looking at where a guy's bat will play best. Guys have different defensive skills, and good organizations will put a guy at the position where his tools play best. If Ackley has really good reflexes and lateral range, 2B is a great choice. If his reflexes are a bit slower but he covers a lot of ground once he gets going, he's a better fit for the OF. That was the case with Jones: his reflexes and footwork weren't a great fit for the middle infield, but he could cover some serious ground in CF. I'll be interested to hear the reports out of ST.

103. By: StandinPat on 11-21-2009 19:50:11
Slam,

Tell me how these two statements are different, "put a guy at the position where his tools play best" and "you honestly feel he has the tools to succeed defensively there"

I JUST said you put him in a pos only if he has the skills to play there, but beyond that, "there's a much, much better reason to switch positions than looking at where a guy's bat will play best," this statement is just flat wrong.

There is a reason Org's will leave a player at a more difficult defensive pos for as long as possible, and that's to maximize the value of his BAT. Granted, if a player doesn't has the physical tools or acumen to be a SS, he's not gonna stay a SS, but teams would rather see if a player can be atleast an average SS, before moving him to 3B even though they know he'll be considerably better there. If you simply moved players based on where their defense plays best, everyone would immediately find themselves at RF or 1B.

104. By: The Great Pumpkin on 11-21-2009 20:09:45
Jason,

How does Ackley compare to Skip Schumaker? With Ackley's possible move to 2B, could we expect similiar results?

105. By: Uncle Al on 11-21-2009 21:56:43
Jason
I'm kind of wondering what your take is on any trades this year and the 40-man roster when you consider that Triunfel, Pineda, Gillies, Hill, Robles, Liddi, plus a few others will possibly need to be added next year. Could it be that by this time next year that the M's will have at least recovered enough from that complete disaster of the Bedard trade to be back on track at more than just the ML level. I think he has to sell some of his assets which are already on the 40-man or in the farm system this year to give him the flexibility he needs. I've got to believe they are going to sign two quality players which will be added to the 40-man as well as Branyan to fill things this year.

106. By: Tommyo on 11-22-2009 12:17:33
M Pops #92.
If the M's and JZ make that deal, I'm done for life.
After the Baltimore trade 5/1 BS deal for two years of Bedard wasn't enough this one would do me in.
Why give away young, growing, cheap talent in Morrow, Aumont, Saunders and Lowe?
Jackson is at best, two years as a #3 with control problems and Crawford walks after 2010.
By 2012;
Morrow may/should be a very solid #2.
Aumont a closer or terrific 8th inning bridge.
Saunders a serviceable starting RF/LF.

107. By: DMac33 on 11-23-2009 12:51:59
Comparing 2 years of Jackson to 3 years of Morrow is all well and fine ...

And in an ideal world, it'd be nice if Morrow's career lived up to where he was drafted. But from what I've seen of him, I have some serious doubts.

First, I've never been impressed by his command or his ability to locate any secondary pitches at all. I realize that you can make an argument that that is harder to do in relief than as a starter. But as a starter you've seen some incredible highs and some incredible batting practice. Any argument that suggests keeping Morrow has to start with the belief that he'll be able to harness his control to the point of being able to be a realistic starter. I'm not talking about from time to time being able to do that ... I'm talking about 2 out of every 3 or 3 out of every 4 starts at minimum.

Second, you have to factor in the fact that he never has shown an ability to stay healthy. That's a bad trend and it's not a trend that has been established due to overuse. Durability is a serious, serious concern here. Some may think you are selling low at this point, I could make an argument that you may be getting the best value possible for him because of the durability issues. There's no question you are talking about a high risk asset in Morrow.

Third, you have to consider the amount of pressure that he has in the Seattle market to perform. He was picked over a local kid that has 2 Cy Youngs to his resume. Regardless of what Morrow does, it will always be compared in the Seattle market to what Lincecum is doing. That's not a healthy position to be in. That's the kind of environment that screams of needing a fresh start and if he doesn't get one via trade, he'll most likely get one when he's a free agent.

As for the discussion regarding Edwin Jackson, I tend to agree with the thought process that the trends of his career are actually showing continued improvement. In my observations of Jackson's career, his kyrptonite are walks and untimely homers.

If you look at Jackson's monthly splits last year, the wheels began coming off in August and continued into September. While the batting average against and base runners allowed were up in August, the ERA was 4.45 ... which while not great, is definitely in the range of still giving his team a chance to win (think 3 earned in 6 innings of work). The trend makes me think of a guy that perhaps got worn down due to a workload that was greater than anything he had previously experienced.

When you look at his last 3 years, you'll see some notable improvements in the trends:

2007: 32 games (31 starts), 161 innings pitched (5 innings per appearance), 5.76 ERA, 1.76 WHIP, .299 BAA, 19 HRs allowed (1 HR per 8 1/2 innings), 88 BB (4.92 BB/9 IP), and 128 Ks (7.16 Ks/9 IP).

2008: 32 games (31 starts), 183.1 innings pitched (just over 5 2/3 innings per appearance), 4.42 ERA, 1.51 WHIP, .281 BAA, 23 HRs allowed (1 HR per 8 innings), 77 BB (3.78 BB/9 IP), and 108 Ks (5.3 Ks/9 IP).

2009: 33 games (33 starts), 214 innings pitched (6 1/2 innings per start), 3.62 ERA, 1.26 WHIP, .247 BAA, 27 HRs allowed (1 HR per 7.93 innings), 70 BB (2.94 BB/9 IP), and 161 Ks (6.77 Ks/9 IP).

These trends show a logical progression to me of a guy that is getting it and figuring it out.

Sometimes I think guys like Jackson that have been exposed to the big leagues at an early age get a bum rap if they failed to produce early. If Jackson's 2009 numbers were for a starter that was in his 2nd or 3rd year in the bigs, everybody would be jumping up and down. They are pretty good numbers for a guy that was 25 for most of the season. But since he's been on the big league scene on and off since 2003, we get more skeptical.

He's cut his walk rate down by 1 BB per 9 innings each of the last 2 years. It definitely appears he's learned to trust his stuff more and rely on his defense. His HR allowed rates have been relatively consistent and aren't horrible.

I think you can do much worse than having a guy with a mid 3 ERA in the middle of your rotation. If he's your #3 starter, I think you've got the foundation of a pretty damn good rotation. Further, when you add a defense to back him like he would have in Seattle, particularly in the OF, and consider the fact that Safeco may be able to minimize some of his mistakes from going out of the park, there is a lot of upside in getting him into the fold - particularly if you are looking at contending in 2010 and 2011 (which may be a reality depending on how much of a hit the Angels take this offseason).

I can understand the scepticism of perhaps a 1 for 1 ... but I'm just not sure that you can ever count on Morrow to hit the 2009 level of Edwin Jackson. And given the trends of Jackson, I'm not sure that arguing that he's going regress is such a valid complaint.

108. By: StandinPat on 11-23-2009 14:53:28
"Comparing 2 years of Jackson to 3 years of Morrow is all well and fine"

Morrow has yet to complete 3 full years of service time, and would be under club control for 4 more years. So basically you'd be comparing 4 years of Morrow against 2 years for Jackson, and quite possibly for less total money as well.

Also I don't think its fair to look at Jackson's improvements over 110 MLB starts, and say he's likely to continue to better, and not look at the fact that Morrow only has 15 MLB starts but has made huge improvements in those starts and is just as likely to be "turning the corner."

109. By: DMac33 on 11-23-2009 15:25:03
For clarification ...

The "comparing 2 years of Jackson to 3 years of Morrow" was talking about the 2010-2011 seasons for Jackson versus the 2010-2012 seasons of Morrow that a club would have the players under the control. The 2 and 3 year windows were per Jason's comments in post #70 above.

Clearly there is a huge difference between 110 MLB starts and 15 MLB starts ... the sample size from which to draw trends is much less in Morrow's case.

That is why I term Morrow to be a very high-risk asset. Clearly, he could very easily develop into a #2 or #3 starter. There's also a chance that he doesn't last a starter and at best turns back into an above average reliver.

We really only have 2 months worth of starts to go off on Morrow - in total, 11 big league starts. 2 of those 11 big league starts were outstanding. The other 9 ranged from mediocre to bad.

In his 4 September starts in 2009, he pitched 23.2 innings, 7 earned runs (2.66 ERA), 15 hits, 13 walks (1.18 WHIP) and 18 Ks. If you take away the Oakland start, you have 15.2 IP with 7 earned runs (4.02 ERA), 14 hits, 11 walks (1.60 WHIP) and 9 Ks.

If you look at his 5 starts in September 2008, which includes the Yankee gem, he pitched 28 innings, 18 earned runs (5.78 ERA), 22 hits, 19 walks (1.46 WHIP) and 28 Ks.

What concerns me with Morrow is his inability to locate multiple pitches. There is definitely the upside there if he can harness it. There are injury concerns that I think everybody would admit to and there's a good chance in my opinion that he could turn into a Rich Harden type where you don't expect more than 25 or so starts per year and some stint on the DL.

I consider my front 3 starters to be my horses. Guys that I think are durable and can take the ball every 5th day. They slot the rest of the rotation properly and allow for the chance to be successful not only during the regular season but also the post season. Injury risks in the rotation to me are significant problems. Can you count on Morrow being healthy enough to pitch the number of innings necessary if this team plays into October?

It is a fair point to suggest that there is a decent chance that Jackson does not show any more significant improvement in the future. Given his trends, I'm not sure I see him as a major regression candidate though. What I do know though is that his '09 season was definitely an above average campaign and a tremendous season if he slots as your #3 guy. He's shown to be durable making 30+ starts each of the last 3 years. Perhaps the upside isn't quite what Morrow's is, but he's a lower risk alternative in my eyes.

There's no doubt that if whoever in the position to pull the trigger on such a deal, particularly if it was 1 for 1, would have to have a firm opinion on the matter. If you're giving up Morrow, you have to have serious question marks on whether you think he can match or exceed where Jackson is. If you're taking Morrow, I'm thinking you have to have a combination view of thinking that the control issues will be straightened out with consistent work and an eye towards cost.

If I had to make a call on this, I'm just not sure that I've seen enough out of Morrow to substantiate the risk of holding the asset another year. If I hold the asset another year and he does not exhibit signs of turning into a top 2-3 of the rotation, then the value of the asset would significant depreciate and I would think that I'd definitely be struggling to get back an arm the caliber of Jackson at this point next year.

110. By: StandinPat on 11-23-2009 16:49:17
The only thing I'd give Jackson over Morrow is the 3 successive years of going over 160 IP and increasing his workload every year. In terms of proven durability, yeah Jackson's got the edge. Everything else, I'm not so sure.

Morrow's K rates and avg against are both considerably better than Jackson, with Jackson's only real edge being that he wasn't as horrible as Morrow in the walks department, and that will prob be the first thing that improves for Morrow going forward. Also, over Morrow's first 15 starts, not sure where that 11 number came from, he has been better than Jackson had in any year previous to this one. In other words, Morrow learning to be a starter was better than Jackson through his first 77.

Morrow's stuff and upside are both better than Jackson's and his median might be about the same as well. He's under club control for twice as long and costs considerably less. Is the Jackson's advantage in potential durability enough to make up for the difference? Not enough for me to pull the trigger if I was Z.

111. By: DMac33 on 11-23-2009 17:44:19
My apologies ... I missed the 4 June starts that he had as he was building up his arm strength. Not sure how much use those starts are in making a comparison of his abilities as a starter given that there's a decent chance that some of the performance numbers could be skewed due to fatigue, etc.

I'd agree 100% on the fact that Morrow's upside may be better than Jackson's.

The question is what is the probability that he gets to that level?

If you believe it is high, then I'd agree with you, you don't make the trade.

If you don't believe he's going to be able to consistently reach and tap into that upside, then I think you make the trade for a pitcher that looks to be more stable.

The age of the pitcher's are about the same. Jackson will be 26 on Opening Day 2010 ... Morrow will be 25. I'm not sure if I buy the whole he's been better over his first 15 starts compared to Jackson's first 77 because the age factor is pretty similar.

There's no doubt that the cost/control combination would favor rolling the dice with Morrow - particularly if you believe he's going to be able to match Jackson's stats.

And I guess that's the question ... do you believe in Brandon Morrow enough to be able to roll the dice with him? I'm pretty sure that Bill Bavasi would roll the dice. I'm not sure if Jackie Z believes in Morrow though ...

Personally, I'm not sure that I believe enough in Brandon Morrow.

Given that the M's payroll is generally in the $90-100MM range, Jackson's not going to be a guy to break the bank. If you tend to believe that the payroll could generally be split somewhere in the 40/60 to 50/50 range between pitching/hitting respectively, then I think Jackson's number is a fit into that structure. If you keep Felix at whatever he's going to be at ($20MM in the initial part of an extention?), some #2 starter ($5-$10 MM per year), Jackson (between $5-8MM per year), Rowland-Smith (less than $1 MM), and somebody in your system from the depth (i.e. Doug Fister, et. al. at roughly the league minimum) - your starters are making maybe $40 MM. Factor in the bullpen where you are in decent shape in that Aardsma isn't breaking the bank, you should be able to piece together the pen for the $5-10MM range for a grand total of $50MM or less for pitching.

Given the composition of the offense, you really need to sink the money into the pitching in order to maintain low scoring games.

Offensively, I think it really depends on what direction that they take offensively. Jackie Z's track record suggests that he's going to be actively looking for low-risk/high-reward options like we saw with Branyan last year. We may make a splash free agent signing with the stick in the $10-$15MM range. You have Ichiro and his $15MM or whatever he's at right now. Jack Wilson re-signed for what - $5MM per year or something? Not entirely sure on his number. Gutierrez is still under club control and I can't imagine has a pretty big number. If they end up rolling out Saunders and Tui as starters, that's 2 guys making the league minimum. The catching position is roughly going to be league minimum to slightly more. Lopez is at $4.5MM or somewhere in that area. Maybe a combined $10-$15MM for 1B/DH? Griffey is on the bench for $2-3MM per year. Going to have some other role players on the bench that aren't going to be bank busters. Unless we go crazy in the free agent market, I don't see how the offensive part of the team is over $50MM.

The offense I don't see as being capable of competing in the 90+ win category on its own merits. There's not enough there. The backbone is pitching and defense. If Brandon Morrow is your #3 starter out of Spring Training, I'm not sure I could say that you are looking at a 90+ win team - regardless of who they sign as a free agent pitcher to fall into the #2 slot. More unknowns in the rotation than knowns. Not a good recipe for winning 90+ games. If you figure that #3 rotation spot up for 32-33 starts on the year, I'm not sure that I like Morrow's position in the rotation (either him or an injury replacement) winning more than half of the starts. If I slide Jackson into that spot, you might be able to get 18-20 wins there.

What percentage of games are you going to win when Felix pitches out of 34 starts? 70%? 75%? That gets you 24-25 wins in games Felix starts.

Let's figure that the #2 starter is an above average starter. Out of 33 starts, let's say the #2 starter allows the team to win 60-65% of their starts, or about 20 more wins.

Let's assume the Mariners win 15-16 of the 33 starts in Morrow's rotation spot and 18-20 if Jackson starts there.

Rowland Smith is going to get 32-33 starts in that rotation spot. You'd be jumping up and down with a split ... so let's assume that 14-16 win range again.

The 5th slot will get 29-30 starts. If you break even you are thrilled ... assume 12 wins.

If you assume 24, 20, 14, and 12 wins for the 1, 2, 4, and 5 spots in your rotation, that gets you to 70 wins before accounting for the #3 spot in the rotation. Add in Morrow's wins and you might be looking at 85-86 victories (most likely not good enough to win the division). Throw in Jackson and you are in the 88-90 range. Now you are within the ballpark of what you need to get it done.

If you stick with Morrow, then I think you really need to get a top level #2 starter in this off-season like a Lackey to push up your expected win totals from 20 to maybe 22-24 wins. Then you have to hope that either Morrow or Rowland-Smith out-perform. If you make the trade for Jackson, then perhaps you can stay away from Lackey and go with maybe more manageable cost options like a Randy Wolf or even take a flier on guys with huge upside in Rich Harden or Ben Sheets.

If you go for the more established top notch #2 and roll the dice with Morrow at #3, is the salary needed to get the established #2 plus Morrow going to be higher than what Jackson and the next tier of starting pitchers or the guys that are a bit of a reclamation project going to cost?

That's the best thing about the Mariners in this offseason, there are so many different ways that they can take this and go. Makes for a lot of interesting discussions.

You are not currently logged in. If you'd like to comment on this report, please log in.
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!