|By Chris Crawford||By 01-05-2010|
|1. By: kyle_mahlstedt on 01-05-2010 12:12:09|
Not a bad player... but I dont think he is an upgrade over Mike Carp..
TRUST IN Jack Z!!!!
|2. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-05-2010 12:12:29|
But...but ....Kotchman sucks.
|3. By: baseballman on 01-05-2010 12:13:35|
hmmmm...i like it so far
|4. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2010 12:15:40|
That's why I don't think it eliminates other possibilities, including Luke Scott, Branyan, LaRoche...
Carp, Kotchman... Kotchman is better, but it's not by much. Mostly defensively, where Carp is bad and Kotch is good.
|5. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:16:02|
I doubt that he costs Seattle a whole lot in prospects. Probably relates to the Beltre signing, in that they're concerned about the luxury tax.
|6. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-05-2010 12:17:36|
What's to like?
I certainly have trouble fawning over a .269/.337.406 career line from a first baseman.
|7. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2010 12:18:03|
It's money and roster space for Boston. They have beltre, youkilis, AND lowell.
|8. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:18:37|
I'm not a big Carp fan, right now. I would rather he goes to the minors and works to get better, rather than give him a spot on the roster, by default.
|9. By: baseballman on 01-05-2010 12:20:08|
RE 6: kotchman is better than what we currently have...whats not to like about upgrading?
|10. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:20:41|
Kotchman has never meet the expectations they've had for him, but that doesn't mean he's useless. And, as I remember when he was with the Angels, he was a pretty good defender, with decent range.
|11. By: Corey on 01-05-2010 12:20:45|
At least he's a good glove
|12. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2010 12:20:46|
It's basically going to be FREE. Seattle isn't giving Boston Saunders or Adam Moore for him.
|13. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-05-2010 12:21:41|
Unless it's like a PTBNL or some cash considerations, I can't see Jack making a deal for a worse than league average first baseman.
|14. By: FWBrodie on 01-05-2010 12:22:09|
Love Kotchman defensively, but aren't the M's running out of roster spots? I wonder who's gone. Perhaps one of the bench guys, Hall or Hannahan?
|15. By: Blowgun7 on 01-05-2010 12:22:41|
Eh, he's better than Carp, but this still shouldn't be it for us pursuing offensive upgrades
|16. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:24:42|
Also, keep in mind, Kotchman is still only 26 years old. He's a low risk, high reward kind of player. Jack has done well on these kind of players.
|17. By: Blowgun7 on 01-05-2010 12:29:27|
Kotchman is not high reward. He's never going to hit.
|18. By: Chris Crawford on 01-05-2010 12:31:25|
I love comments like this. He's never going to hit...ignoring that 2 years ago he had an 840 OPS in 500 at bats as a 24 year old.
But he'll never hit.
We're still trying to find out more about whats going to the sawks...stay tuned.
|19. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2010 12:32:23|
If Kotchman comes with cash, and the M's are sending ... Edman or Blowgun7 to Boston for him, he's pretty much FREE for Seattle. Which means he could easily be simply the backup plan in case you can't get Branyan, Scott or LaRoche.
|20. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:34:33|
I suggest you look at his 2007 and 2008 numbers, before you draw a simplistic conclusion, Blowgun. No, he's not an Adrian Gonzalez, but he has recent numbers that suggest he's not exactly Mario Mendoza.
|21. By: Blowgun7 on 01-05-2010 12:36:09|
Yes, not saying it's a bad pickup. It's fine, but I wouldn't expect Kotchman is our starting firstbasemen next year. He's nice insurance in case the other plans for a 1B don't work out.
And he's better than relying on an unknown guy like Carp. You know Kotchman is going to be a good fielding 1B and post a reasonable OBP.
I still don't think he hits enough though to be the solution over there at 1B
|22. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-05-2010 12:36:44|
Peachy if the guy costs us nothing of value. But like another poster said, hows the roster going to shake out? Have to think Hanrahan is gone but who's our MI bench guy then?
|23. By: Hackinator on 01-05-2010 12:36:59|
Ironically he had nearly identical stats to Beltre's last year .
|24. By: Blowgun7 on 01-05-2010 12:37:30|
I know all about Kotchman. He's a .750 type OPS guy with a good glove. Nice upgrade for the time being, but I think most of us want more out the 1B position given some of the FAs and trade options out there.
|25. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:38:36|
It's hard for Seattle to lose on this deal.
BTW, screw the Red Sox Nation.....I'd retire before I'd accept a trade to Boston.....LOL.
I REALLY hate the "yuppie bandwagoning" Red Sox fans who see it as "fashionable" to root for them. I was a Sox fan back in the days of Dewey Evans, Reggie Smith, Pudge Fisk, et al.
|26. By: mazono on 01-05-2010 12:39:18|
Jason Any word on the Gutierrez extension that I posted earlier under the pitcher thread?
|27. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:41:45|
Anyone see a trend? Guys who can draw a walk.
|28. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 12:43:21|
If the M's are planning on making Kotchman their starting 1B for 2010, then I'm gonna throw up all over myslef. If this is a move for depth and increasing their options, ok. I can handle that.
Also, I'm not positive, but I think Kotchman might have an option left. If that's the case he'd be effectively replacing Nelson, in which case, yay.
|29. By: Notatroll on 01-05-2010 12:45:06|
Mariners Sign Gutierrez To Four-Year Deal
By Tim Dierkes [January 5 at 2:43pm CST]
The Mariners signed center fielder Franklin Gutierrez to a four-year, $20.5MM deal with a fifth-year club option, according to a Dave Cameron tweet citing Venezuelan reporter Francisco Blavia.
|30. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:47:24|
I would still call that unconfirmed. Because a reporter in Venezuela tweeted it, doesn't make it real.
I hope it is true, that's a heck of a value for the M's.
|31. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 12:49:30|
There are so many free agents left out there right now, it's hard to say what Jack is going to do. With Beltre signing, he doesn't have to worry about arbitration. Though, I doubt it would have held him back.
Keep it up, Jack.
|32. By: Notatroll on 01-05-2010 12:50:06|
Sorry.That was from MLBtraderumors.com.
|33. By: DRWheelock on 01-05-2010 12:55:25|
Here is the article link for Gutz $20.5M deal:
|34. By: pwhit44 on 01-05-2010 12:56:26|
How long until someone suggests that Kotchman will be flipped as the 1B-component of a package for Adrian Gonzalez?
My countdown to that moment begins.
|35. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2010 12:58:05|
pwhitt44 -- awesome.
|36. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 12:58:28|
That's gonna be a long countdown. Pads already have a future 1B in Kyle Blanks, should they trade Adrian.
|37. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 12:59:19|
Misread the sarcasm, apologies
|38. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 13:00:02|
LOL.....pwhitt, no doubt the Lopez-Kotchman-(seven worthless minor leaguers) trade scenarios can't be too far behind.
|39. By: pwhit44 on 01-05-2010 13:03:35|
Edman... Yup. Lopez+Kotchman+LargePepperoniPizza.
|40. By: Adam T on 01-05-2010 13:12:00|
Kotchman is a 1-win player. Might as well let Carp try to be that kind of player. This isn't a bad move if $ comes with Kotchman - I have no doubt we aren't giving Boston anything of value, but it really isn't a good move, either.
It maybe makes the team a bit better. Oh well.
|41. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 13:25:10|
Let Carp prove it at AAA. He got off to a hot start in Tacoma, then had a mediocre second-half. Not enough to give him a back-up role in Seattle.
|42. By: jgstecker on 01-05-2010 13:30:57|
I seriously doubt there's money changing hands here.
A. I'm pretty sure a guy has to have a contract before money can be included. Kotchman doesn't at this point. if Boston allocates a certain amount toward a yet-to-be-determined arbitration salary, that could wreak havoc on the negotiating process.
B. Why would the Red Sox pay to get rid of a guy they could have gotten rid of for free 3 weeks ago? The Red Sox knew from Day 1 this offseason that Kotchman wasn't in their plans at all. They only offered him arbitration because they assumed they could get something interesting for him in a trade.
Maybe Jack knows what he's doing, but kotchman seems far from ideal.
|43. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 13:37:23|
"Why would the Red Sox pay to get rid of a guy they could have gotten rid of for free 3 weeks ago?"
The Red Sox didn't have Beltre and his addt'l $10 mil salary 3 weeks ago
|44. By: lewis on 01-05-2010 13:55:58|
is he under contract now or not, if he is under contract arbitration doesn't seem to be an issue this year (at this point in time)...is it? am I missing something?
|45. By: mymrbig on 01-05-2010 13:56:44|
* Good pedigree as a top prospect with pure hitting ability.
* Hit .370/.430/.550 across AA and AAA as a 21-year-old in 2004 and made his MLB debut.
* Hit .289/.372/.441 as a 22-year-old in AAA in 2005 and put up good .278/.352/.484 line in the majors as a 22-year-old.
* Hit .296/.372/.467 as a 24-year-old in 2007, his first full season in the minors.
* Is only 27 and plays good defense.
* Never had tons of power as a prospect.
* Hit .270/.332/.400 combined between 2008 and 2009. What happened?
* Career GB/FB ratio is 1.78. Hits way, way too many grounders for a guy whose last name isn't Bourn, Pierre, or Suzuki. If he could just get some more loft, his numbers would look much better.
For reference, Carp hit .299/.403/.471 in AA as a 22-year-old and .271/.372/.446 in AAA as a 23-year-old. But Carp was striking out a lot more and he was a year behind Kotchman in terms of development.
Personally, I like the risk. Carp's offensive upside is barely above Kotchman's downside for 2010 (.270/.330/.400 that Kotchman hit the past 2 years), and Kotchman is the better defender, has shown significantly more upside in the past, is just entering his prime, and is more proven at the MLB level (less risk of complete failure).
|46. By: mymrbig on 01-05-2010 13:58:36|
Sorry, hit .296/.372/.467 as a 24-year-old in 2007, his first full season in the MAJORS.
|47. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2010 14:09:03|
He has no set salary yet, but is considered a player under contract since the Mariners will be on the hook for whatever his arbitration status is.
Although that's a bit of a misnomer, because clubs can release players in ST and pay them a small percentage of the arby number.
|48. By: mymrbig on 01-05-2010 14:09:25|
Love the Gutierrez extension, though I was curious to see what kind of trade value he might have had if the M's decided to move Ackley back to CF. But really no downside.
Assuming there isn't a real prospect going to Boston, I like the Kotchman aquisition. Only downside is money. But it doesn't preclude the M's from going after another 1B/DH type. Kotchman has more upside than most people seem to acknowledge (seriously folks, he hit .296/.372/.467 as a 24-year-old and was not helped by BABIP luck or anything fluky). Who knows if the M's staff can help get him back to what he showed in 2007, but there isn't a ton of downside.
|49. By: mazono on 01-05-2010 14:16:19|
I am listening to Brock and Slak and They had a Alex Spear on there talking about Kotchman. He said that a guy he works for said a Minor player TBNL, major leaguer role player and cash going to boston. Is it Hall?
|50. By: mazono on 01-05-2010 14:17:05|
|51. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 14:18:46|
I agree, I don't see any horrible downside to the Kotchman deal. He's still young with major league experience.
More of a ceiling than Carp, IMO.
|52. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-05-2010 14:20:03|
This sounds like a bad deal as it sits.
|53. By: wazzu93 on 01-05-2010 14:21:02|
Jason-Can you expand a little on why you don't expect Guti to age particularly well through 32? Thanks. :)
|54. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 14:21:34|
Who is Alex Spear and why do I care what a guy he works for said?
I doubt that Seattle includes any money. They're helping Boston get cash relief in regard to the Luxury Tax.
|55. By: universalguru on 01-05-2010 14:26:27|
If it is Hall then does that mean they aren't comfortable with a Langerhans/Hall platoon in left? Maybe they want Saunders full-time or more likely have a deal ready for another OF.
|56. By: universalguru on 01-05-2010 14:27:34|
By the way... in my suggestion I was inferring that Bradley wouldn't see much time at LF and a lot at DH. Or maybe they want Bradley to play more in left? Oh lord I dunno, whatever.
|57. By: mazono on 01-05-2010 14:31:35|
Edman,he is a guy that works for WEII's in Boston. And corretion his last name is Speier. I am just trying to pass along what I hear. I am no expert. Chill man.
|58. By: Lamda on 01-05-2010 14:32:04|
Good deal on the Gutz signing. Not surprising at all - I said I thought he'd be here for a long time and not gone in a year to make room for Ackley, lol. He plays too well defensively in CF and his bat is starting to come around - it's not out of the realm of possibility for him to be a 20/100 type guy.
|59. By: marinerdan on 01-05-2010 14:46:04|
Jason, have injuries been a big deal for Kotchman? Looking at his splits over the last couple of years, he has had some really good months, then just stops playing, assuming due to injury, and they struggles to come back. If he says healthy, maybe he will be serviceable.
|60. By: FWBrodie on 01-05-2010 15:06:01|
It's gotta be Bill Hall heading to Boston.
I'm sure Jason's currently working on getting together a scouting report on Kotchman right now. Can't wait.
What causes a player to hit everything on the ground as Kotchman has in the big leagues and can anything be done to fix it?
|61. By: jgstecker on 01-05-2010 15:11:22|
Rosethal says its Hall. That makes a lot more sense.
Look for a right-handed DH (Vlad?) to go with an all-lefty bench of Hannahan, Griffey, and Langerhans.
|62. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 15:29:39|
I doubt they'd go after another DH only type. I'm sure Bradley will get some ABs as the DH.
Jack has a lot of options left out on the FA market.
|63. By: Adam T on 01-05-2010 15:30:09|
So Jason - how might this work w/cash going to Boston? Is the $$ MIL is supposed to send us to cover Hall just getting passed along to BOS?
What do you think?
|64. By: Adam T on 01-05-2010 15:35:48|
This is a pretty underwhelming deal, but I think part of it is Jack's previous moves being so awesome that a lateral move like this seems lame by comparison. I still think Carp is a pretty similar player, but perhaps Zduriencik just didn't see how he could get ABs for Hall, and sees more use for Kotchman.
It would seem that the move is pretty much salary-neutral, no?
|65. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 15:36:35|
"Look for a right-handed DH (Vlad?) to go with an all-lefty bench"
Griffey can't play the field at all, and Bradley can't play it everyday. I seriously doubt they'd bring in another DH type, esp at $4 mil, to play 80 games and reduce their lineup flexibility.
As far as handedness goes, You have 2 Switch Hitters, 2 Lefties, and 4 Righties. Its not like they need a RH to balance things out.
|66. By: FWBrodie on 01-05-2010 15:45:49|
So as of now:
Bench: Langerhans, Johnson, Hannahan
One spot left to fill. Looks like a first baseman (or a hitter that can handle first base some of the time) would still be ideal.
|67. By: Adam T on 01-05-2010 15:48:22|
So, we have a 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, C, RF, CF, LF (Saunders), and DH (Bradley).
We have Griffey, Hannahan, Langerhans, and Johnson on the bench. That's 13 position players, folks. I know things can change between now and April, but unless the team is planning to break with 11 pitchers, there isn't room at the time for another bat. That is, of course, unless they move Saunders back down to Tacoma.
So if Zduriencik has his eyes on another bat, where does it play? DH (Bradley/Griffey)? LF (Saunders/Langerhans/Bradley)? 1B (Kotchman)?
1B makes the most sense, but do we really want to add another 1B/DH type?
|68. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 15:48:48|
" Is the $$ MIL is supposed to send us to cover Hall just getting passed along to BOS?"
I hadn't even thought of that. Initially I just assumed the money would be us sending dough to cover part or all of the $1.5 mil we are on the hook for, but technically speaking Hall is owed $8.4 mil. So even if we actually saved money in the deal, we would still be sending money to Boston.
If this works out to be Hall and a generic PTBNL for Kotchman and only a $1-$2 mil increase in payroll, it suddenly looks considerably better. Additionally, Langerhans is better in the OF, and Hannahan in the IF than Hall, so this could actually make our bench better by jettisoning him.
|69. By: jgstecker on 01-05-2010 15:52:49|
Langerhans will pick up whatever Bradley can't handle in LF. If Bradley misses extended time, Saunders comes up from AAA.
Tui looks like a good fit with Hall gone. He'll probably ride the shuttle between Seattle and Tacoma whenever Wak fluctuates between 11 and 12 pitchers.
Ryan Doumit would be a decent fit at DH now too. He can play 1B when you want to get right-handed and catch some when you need to get an extra lefty in there. You could give Johnson's bench job to Tui in that scenario.
|70. By: Blowgun7 on 01-05-2010 15:53:49|
I dont like this move. I thought Hall provided good versatility, and I also thought he could provide a solid bat vs LHP in LF.
I guess we're now in a Bradley/Langerhans/Griffey rotation for the LF/DH spots.
If Kotchman is the new 1B, I'd love to see us go out and get a left fielder. Milton cannot play the outfield consistently, or we will lose him to injury.
|71. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 16:04:00|
Hall managed an OPS of just .606 against LHP last year. I know its a small sample size, but his body looked broken last year. He might flat out be done, both offensively and defensively.
Moore isn't gonna catch 130+ games his rookie year, so I don't think they'd go with Doumit as the back up C and give him upwards of 60 starts behind the plate. He def makes some sense as a RH bat with some versatility, but I doubt he'd be the only other catcher.
As for Tui, I had the same thought previously. It seems like he may not have the D to hold down 3B as a starter, but if he can fill in there, and some 2B(He didn't look awful there), couple that with him getting some experience at his most natural pos COF, and he might be a pretty darn good RH utility player down the road.
|72. By: micahjr on 01-05-2010 17:03:38|
It will be interesting to see how much Bradley plays LF.
Whatever has happened to make Kotchman pound the ball into the ground all the time, I hope our crew can fix it.
|73. By: Lailoken on 01-05-2010 17:18:49|
It'll be interesting to see what money is involved when the deal is officially announced. If the M's are sending very little money with Hall this will be a great move. While it's unclear how much of Hall's 2010 salary the M's were on the hook for I'm pretty sure that figure was for more than Kotchman's potential sunk cost if he's released in spring training. Now the M's have insurance as they wait, playing out the market for possibly cheap deals on Branyan, Delgado, & Laroche. They can also wait to see how healthy Delgado (who just started playing winter ball this past Sunday) & Branyan look closer to spring training.
As for the loss of Hall--- right-handed hitters who kill left-handed pitching are available at cheap prices in plenty. Xavier Nady who missed almost all of 2009 due to Tommy John surgery is a decent corner OF (career UZR/150 of 1.8 in LF & -2.1 in RF) & has a career OPS of .854 versus LHP. Another example, Reed Johnson (23.3 in LF & -7.9 in RF, 5.4 overall as an OF) & .841 versus LHP. Others: Jerry Hairston, Baldelli, Tatis, Giles, & Winn. Hall is easily replacable & we have 3B depth in Figgins, Hannahan, Lopez, & Tuiasosopo.
|74. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 17:51:35|
I don't see any need for concern. I think Jack is far from done making moves. This and Beltre's signing might lead to signing Sheets.
This might put a serious hurt on Branyan's return to Seattle. If Jack sees Kotchman as a serious candidate for the starting firstbase job next year, it could change the direction he goes in further acquisitions. For example, he might go after another bat who can play first and possibly play a little outfield.
It's hard to say what Jack has planned. He's not at all afraid to make moves. I can't remember the last time I've seen so much activity in a Mariners offseason.
I'm sure Jack will surprise us yet again.
|75. By: candasharp on 01-05-2010 18:40:37|
I had targeted Kotchman several months ago as a possible acquisition so this feels good to me. I actually believe that Kotchman will have a great year in Seattle. In other words, I am going to pick him up for my fantasy team just like I took Kendry Morales last year. Gotta go with the gut.
Now let's get a little more pop in the lineup, maybe sign Orlando Hudson, snag another starter and have some fun!
|76. By: Rudolf on 01-05-2010 19:01:38|
Not worried nor excited about the trade. The team looks good. There is plenty more offseason to come. I'm going to dream on Kotchman's potential and wait for the next big move. Between this and Gutierrez, It's a good day for the city of Seattle.
|77. By: DRWheelock on 01-05-2010 19:07:18|
candasharp..."Now lets get a little more pop in the lineup, maybe sign Orlando Hudson"
How does that bring any kind of additional pop to our lineup? Signing Hudson now will mean moving Lopez's 22-25 HRs...so we'd lose pop!
Lopez is now the ONLY pop in our lineup and that's really sad!
Great D, great SP, great Bullpen, great speed.
I'm REALLY concerned about this! I trust Z has something major up his sleeve, but I am definitely worried about this!
|78. By: Edman on 01-05-2010 19:10:18|
It's way too soon to be concerned. There are a lot of free agents who haven't signed yet.
A month from now, I'll be concerned.
|79. By: StandinPat on 01-05-2010 19:38:40|
I'm really concerned people are actually touting "pop" as the linchpin to our offensive success. Especially when they reference Lopez as an example of a Mariner with "pop." Gutierrez, Ichiro, and even Mike Sweeney were more valuable hitters than Lopez last year, despite having less "pop." The M's simply need good hitters, and Hudson, despite having less power, is a better hitter than Lopez plain and simple.
Overall, yeah I'd like to see the M's continue to improve their offense, but at this point I don't know why anyone should be concerned that all we've done is improve our Pitching, Defense, and Offense....and we aren't even done yet.
|80. By: FatBat on 01-05-2010 19:41:36|
LarRoche turned down 2 years 17mil? Is he, A Ratard? Is he trying to bankrupt a Casino? I don't see him coming to seattle. Though I would like that 25 homers right about now. Kotchman should be good. Glad to dump Hall. I think a Luke Scott or Swisher would fit in nicely my man!
|81. By: DRWheelock on 01-05-2010 21:09:10|
MLBTradeRumors reporting that Twins just made an offer to Washburn. They sign Washburn then NO WAY Liriano will have a spot in their rotation. Over the past several weeks, with all this Liriano talk, there's been a lot of talk the Twins #5 spot going to one of their LHPs. A Washburn signing would bump Liriano and all others down to AAA.
Sounds like a precursor for a potential Lopez/Liriano swap if you ask me.
Just my 2 cents.
Hmmmm...that would be another $2M Seattle saves, but I would think Hall would of been a backup plan for 2B if Hudson or Felipe Lopez didn't sign with us.
I also think Bradley will play more LF than most think 50%-70% of the time, which leaves a possibility that Seattle nabs Vlad for $2M to platoon with Griffey as a RHB DH off the bench.
Still a lot of possibilities that Z Man has.
|82. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2010 21:22:39|
how does a team's best starting pitcher making very little money have no spot?
That's ridiculous, man, come on.
|83. By: kyle_mahlstedt on 01-05-2010 21:30:08|
I think one of Liriano, Harang, Sheets and Bedard will be in the starting rotation for 2010. As for the DH/1B/2B situation, I wonder if Lopez will stay put at 2B for 2010. BUT, Jack Z MUST add another bat to this lineup.
Jason, Do you see the M's adding another bat? Maybe Guerrero, Damon, LaRoche, Branyan etc.? What about starting pitching?
|84. By: DRWheelock on 01-05-2010 22:32:09|
I'm just repeating what I've read from many other Twins fans over on MLBTradeRumors. They are not counting on him being back to his 2007 level.
I like the thought of Harang though
|85. By: Adam T on 01-06-2010 00:11:23|
Baker > Liriano.
But I'd dump Blackburn or Perkins before Liriano.
|86. By: bodhizefa on 01-06-2010 00:16:53|
I bet we simply needed a little extra cash to get Harang (and possibly another bat like Scott) into the fold, and this was the only feasible way for Zduriencik to do it.
|87. By: Chris Crawford on 01-06-2010 02:47:24|
Guys, can we try and keep the
5 posts to a minimum? We're smart enough to figure out what would happen if this and then that happened. Thanks.
|88. By: MarinersArmy on 01-06-2010 03:21:00|
I like what you have to say on both Harang and Scott. Harang would be an amazing #3 SP for our rotation!
|89. By: Hammy47 on 01-06-2010 05:53:06|
Why isn't Guitierrez going to age well from now until he is 32? Those should be his prime years...
|90. By: universalguru on 01-06-2010 07:38:55|
The more I hear the same Luke Scott the more I I hope the Yanks sign Damon so we can try to make a deal for Nick Swisher. The guy's a switch-hitter with power (though consider Yankee Stadium). He can play LF and 1B, both about average. He'd be a pretty good but not great #4 (better than Scott). He's got plenty of playoff experience, a bit of a premium for the M's recently (see Figgins and Lee). A deal for him would leave flexibility come the deadline to acquire an OF or a 1B if Kotchmann doesn't pan out.
Granted I understand that NY may not be interested in dealing him. They make be straight-up done with Damon. However, IF Damon re-signs what would be the chances we pick him up and what would he cost in terms of prospects/major league talent?
|91. By: jgstecker on 01-06-2010 08:02:38|
Adam T ~
Perkins was exiled from the rotation last year. Blackburn and Slowey are the guys at the back end at the moment. Those two are both making the league minimum and have 4 years of club control left. Liriano only has 3 years left and he's going to get expensive. Add the fact that Liriano has higher trade value and is no lock to outpitch those other two, and he becomes the most expendable of the lot.
I'm not sure what the Twins budget looks like, but they still need a 2B/3B and they may need Liriano's money for that.
|92. By: slick on 01-06-2010 09:03:19|
A little off subject, but with the signing of Beltre the Mariners are currently in line for the 35TH pick in the 2010 draft with a few free agents left The M's will pick no later than 37. Not a bad year to offer arbitration seeing that the lesser teams did not offer arb to their players or simply didnt have free agents.
|93. By: mymrbig on 01-06-2010 09:34:07|
Jason, if you get a chance to talk with any scouts/execs about Kotchman, would you mind asking about his ridiculously high groundball rate? I am very curious as to why he hits so many balls on the ground and it seems he would be much more productive if there is a tweak or something to his swing that could give him more loft and a ratio closer to 1:1.
|94. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2010 11:17:04|
Kotchman has hit a lot of ground balls for two main reasons:
1. He has but average bat speed, which means he's often cheating on good velocity, which puts him out in front on offspeed stuff, which generally leads to ground balls. On the other side of the coin, he's aggressive enough that he makes a lot of contact, and that aggression leads to more of the same.
2. His swing plane is designed for line drives, and the second-most likely result is a ground ball. Whereas a bat like Branyan, who has the upper cut that I wouldn't teach anyone to use, will most often strike out or fly out, when he's not hitting the ball squarely.
The fact that he's not a severe fly baller is one of the reasons he's a fit at Safeco, but I have to believe the Mariners plan on tinkering with his swing mechanics a little bit, much like Tampa did with Ben Zobrist, who turned out to be one of the better hitters in baseball in 2009.
|95. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2010 11:41:11|
The Twins are telling agents that there is room for a SP and either a 2B or 3B, but that means Liriano's minimal arbitration salary isn't going to make the difference.
Pohlad has already told GM Bill Smith that with the opening of the new ballpark, he'll be more flexible with the payroll, despite refusing to raise the number to triple digits.
It's not like they need $25 million to fill out their roster, and trading Liriano isn't saving them enough.
It just doesn't make any sense at all to trade Liriano this winter when his value is this low. Much wiser to see what he brings to the table for a few months and if they are contending in the summer months, maybe look to make a deal then when clubs pine for pitching.
|96. By: Jerry on 01-06-2010 11:53:14|
Its funny you bring up Zobrist.
The one thing I like about this move is potential for a breakout by Kotchman. He had enough skills to be considered an elite prospects just a few years ago, and he put up good numbers in 2007. He clearly has the potential for a career turnaround. Since then, he has been moved around and not gotten consistent playing time, so perhaps a change of scenery and a starting job could give the M's a diamond in the rough.
I think there is a not insignificant chance that he could have a breakout similar to Zobrist or Carlos Pena.
I don't see him hitting for that type of power, but I wouldn't be all that surprised to see him put up numbers like Lyle Overbay or perhaps a bit more. If he can produce at a similar rate to his 2007 numbers, that is a very good player.
I don't see a ton of downside here since we didn't give up much to get him. He is a good bet to be a serviceable player, and there is always the 10-15% chance that he has a Carlos Pena-esque breakout and finally lives up to his top prospect billing. Sometimes prospects flounder for a bit before putting everything together. Kotchman fits that bill perfectly, and is only 27. He has a lot more upside than I think people realize.
|97. By: Jerry on 01-06-2010 12:32:27|
The other thing I don't get is why people seem to think this signals the end of Branyan in Seattle.
It wouldn't be an issue to get playing time for both. Moving Branyan between 1B, DH, and the bench would also keep him healthy.
This could be one way to divide up the playing time:
Most common starting lineup:
Bench: Johnson/Bard, Hannahan, Griffey, Langerhans
The biggest issue here is whether the club thinks enough of Hannahan defensively to let him back up SS and 2B. I think he could do it, particularly since Figgins, Lopez, and Wilson are likely to play a lot. It would be nice to have another guy who can play SS on the bench, but I don't think Hannahan would kill you. If Wilson goes down with something bad, they could always bring up someone like Josh Wilson from AAA to replace him.
Basically, the club would be dividing playing time at DH, 1B, and LF between five players: Bradley, Branyan, Kotchman, Langerhans, and Griffey. Three of those guys - Griffey, Branyan, and Bradley - have trouble staying healthy and would benefit from regular time off. If each position averages about 700 ABs per season, the breakdown could work out to something like this:
Obviously, this assumes that those five guys remain healthy the entire year, which isn't a safe bet at all. However, the M's will have Saunders and Carp waiting for their shot in Tacoma, giving them nice depth. In the even that one or two of those guys gets injured, Carp and Saunders would suck up the extra playing time. Since the roster will have multiple guys who can play LF and 1B, it won't be hard to move guys around if someone will miss big chunks of time.
It seems like the market for DH/1B types is pretty weak right now, so Branyan could end up with a surprisingly team friendly contract. That would leave the club with some $$$ to spend on a SP.
|98. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2010 12:53:33|
I think Branyan is still No. 1 for Seattle and vice versa, but I also think Jim Thome could come into play here.
|99. By: universalguru on 01-06-2010 13:02:13|
Jason, what about Nick Swisher? There were rumors he was available early in the off-season if the Yankees re-sign Damon. Is at all a possibility. He's a switch-hitting 1B and OF with playoff experience and a little pop. Brock on 710 suggests Ryan Garko but there's no way we make that deal in my opinion. Very little reason to. I'd like Branyan but I don't see him fitting anymore. I may be thinking too far outside of the box here but Swisher would sure fit into our plans perfectly.
|100. By: Edman on 01-06-2010 13:13:28|
Griffey will not ride the bench. He doesn't have a 400 AB incentive clause, so he can be a pinch-hitter.
|101. By: Jackson on 01-06-2010 13:43:26|
Edman, his contract for last season also had a bonus for winning a Gold Glove award. He hardly played the field and the team wasn't obligated put him out there just so he would have a chance to earn that bonus.
His 2010 contract has bonuses at 350, 400, 450 and 500 PA.
|102. By: Edman on 01-06-2010 13:59:04|
Doesn't matter, Jackson. He's not riding the bench. Think what you want, but they didn't bring him back to do autograph sessions.
The lefty-DH spot is his, untill it isn't. They aren't at all likely to sign Branyan to put his butt on the bench.
Doesn't mean they won't sign Branyan, but it won't be to displace Griffey. Perhaps a platoon of Griffey-Branyan-Bradley at the DH is possible.
Is it right? We'll see.
|103. By: Edman on 01-06-2010 14:42:11|
In looking at Kotchman's stats, he might actually make a good platoon with Branyan. He seems to hit lefthanded pitching, better than he does righthanded pitching.
Branyan isn't as good against lefties.
Who knows what Jack has up his sleeve?
|104. By: jgstecker on 01-06-2010 14:43:31|
"Griffey will not ride the bench"
False. If you think the club is not going to add one more impact bat at LF/DH, you're in for a surprise.
It'll take some significant injuries for Griffey to land even 60 starts this year.
|105. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2010 14:55:27|
Griffey is going to have a lot of 1-2 PA games, too.
|106. By: Edman on 01-06-2010 15:42:59|
Significan't injuries to land even 60 starts? So you think he's gonna get maybe 30 starts?
Unless he's injured, I think he'd get at least 60 starts, unrelated to the health of others.
Naturally, if he's not hitting, that will impact his playing time. But I guess we'll see.
|107. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-06-2010 16:25:48|
"The biggest issue here is whether the club thinks enough of Hannahan defensively to let him back up SS and 2B. I think he could do it, particularly since Figgins, Lopez, and Wilson are likely to play a lot."
--Speaking of Hannahan. Could someone please explain why he is a roster candidate? From his numbers, he has no business with a bat in his hands in the big leagues. NONE. The guy just cannot hit....at all. So that would mean he *must* be an ELITE defensive player. Well he seems to be a good defender at the corners but an untested middle infielder. I would much prefer we went with a proven defensive SS/2B if we are completely sacrificing offense (as in Hannrahan's case).
That said, with the newly acquired Kotchman, I would be surprised if Hannrahan breaks camp with the team since he's not really needed as a defensive 1B to spell Branyan. And with his unknown-ness in the MI, he doesn't belong on the 25-man, in my opinion. I prefer Josh Wilson to Hannrahan.
|108. By: StandinPat on 01-06-2010 17:05:08|
Hannahan is an elite defender in the corners. His career 16.8 UZR/150 at 3rd is ridiculous, and it appears he should be passable for short periods of time up the middle.
As far as his overall skillset, I think you are selling him a bit short. His career .295 wOBA isn't pretty, and would put him about 18 runs below average over the course of an entire season. But if he came anywhere close to maintaining his career UZR over the course of a season, you'd be looking at a slightly below average 3B. By comparison, Jose Lopez is a roughly average 2B.
|109. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-06-2010 17:08:55|
But can we depend on him to be an above average defender up the middle? Its very doubtful Figgins is going to see much time off and with Kotchman at first, Hannahan's most value is as quality SS given Jack Wilson is our most fragile infielder at this point.
|110. By: StandinPat on 01-06-2010 17:35:00|
I would just say that the want/need for a backup MI is separate from whether or not Hannahan is a decent player IMO. As far as that backup MI goes, Wilson's bat is even worse than Hannahan's, and while he made a couple sweet over the shoulder catches, he hasn't exactly proven he is an above average defenders at SS either.
|111. By: littlelinny6 on 01-06-2010 18:28:31|
If the M's sign a DH like Thome or even Branyan, is Saunders destined for AAA?? It seems like everyone is treating him like he is a terrible player but rather he could be our best bet playing LF every day, at least against RHP. But again, I don't think we should make Saunders a platoon bat when he has a few hundred ML plate appearances.
Obviously we will know more by spring training but the LF/DH/1B situation looks like a clusterf*&$ and someone is going to Tacoma and I'd guess that is Saunders.
|112. By: Adam T on 01-06-2010 23:19:00|
Another DH, such as Thome, would make ZERO sense and cause me to doubt the FO for the first time.
For all the talk about Zduriencik's love of versatile players, having Bradley (who is best suited to DH), Griffey, and Thome on the same roster would be a terrible idea. It would leave Hannahan and Langerhans as your only bench players who can actually play defense.
This is why the Kotchman move is so odd - 1B seemed like the best spot to improve the offense (we already have enough DHs, and a good LF is harder to come by, never mind Saunders/Langerhans/Hall/Bradley). Perhaps we acquired Kotchman to be a bench guy, and perhaps a LaRoche is still a possibility, but Thome would be baffling.
|113. By: bumkus on 01-07-2010 00:01:19|
Anyone wondering about the change in Ben Zobrist should read this article:
I think we need to get Mr. Cevallos out here to work on Kotchman/Langerhans/Hannahan - maybe a few others.
|114. By: d2ret on 01-07-2010 07:28:17|
Amazing article bumkus, thank you for providing that link. Wouldnt that be something huh, if we could get him out here? Jack Wilson would become Omar Vizquel.
|115. By: Edman on 01-07-2010 09:23:57|
Agreed Adam, another DH lefty makes zero sense.
|116. By: Edman on 01-07-2010 09:37:50|
With Kotchman in the fold, wouldn't that leave the potential to go get Luke Scott, provided the Orioles would be willing to move him?
He's not good against lefties, but you could put Bradley in LF against lefties, and Scott against righties.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. And, Kotchman isn't useless against righties (not as good, despite he hits lefthanded pitching better).
That would be a major improvement, top to bottom, for the offense.
|117. By: Chris Crawford on 01-07-2010 09:43:32|
I tend to think Scott is someone who makes perfect sense at this point, and not just because he can somewhat play LF -- I dont believe that acquiring Kotchman means no addition to 1B, for all the reasons Jason has explained.
Is there a higher chance of the next bat added being a LF? Maybe...but I wouldn't cross out Branyan OR Scott, not yet anyway.
|118. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-07-2010 09:47:32|
It actually makes more sense for the next bat to be Branyan than Scott, since it really sounds like Milton Bradley is going to play a lot of left field -- a 65-35 split with Saunders.
|119. By: universalguru on 01-07-2010 09:56:33|
Does anyone think Brad Hawpe could play 1st? If so maybe he could play 1st and DH, Bradley playing LF and DH, Griffey getting a few at bats at DH and Kotchmann backing up Hawpe on the days Hawpe DHs? Or I could just be an idiot.
|120. By: universalguru on 01-07-2010 09:57:56|
PS- I was thinking about him IF Colorado wouldn't want much in return. I'd be worried about the Coors effect too.
|121. By: Edman on 01-07-2010 10:36:33|
It's always nice to have options. Hard to say what Jack has planned. If anything, he's unpredictable.
|122. By: Edman on 01-07-2010 10:39:26|
And just why would Colorado want to move Brad Hawpe?
|123. By: universalguru on 01-07-2010 10:49:08|
Because I said so... I don't know. The truth is I really want Nick Swisher. But that's not happening unless the Yankees sign Damon and they've said they're pursuing a RH OF instead (Damon's a LH). I'm still worried about power in our line-up (no, not just homers but slugging in general).
I still don't think the M's expect Bradley to even play half of his game in the OF, meaning Branyan in very unlikely. Signing Branyan would just put a ton of pressure on Langerhans and Hannahan as backups. Then again that may be exactly why they've stocked up on middle inflied minor league deals (Wilsona nd Woodward) again.
|124. By: StandinPat on 01-07-2010 12:18:59|
Couple of things, first, does anyone know if Kotchman has any options left? He wasn't yo-yo'd too much as a prospect, and while he did have a couple short stints in the minors in 06 and 09 I believe those were both rehab stints and wouldn't count against his options. If that's the case and he COULD be sent to the minors, then he's really cheap Branyan insurance, as it looks like he's only gonna add $1-1.5 mil to the books.
As far as Scott goes, yeah he's def better against righties, but he has run an OPS of .793 against lefties over the last three years, so it's not like he's lost against them or is an automatic platoon. I think he makes a ton of sense, plus the M's can give him an extended look at 1B, and if he looks like he can handle it, it opens the door for Saunders later down the road.
|Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central|
Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome