|By Jason A. Churchill||By 01-04-2011|
|1. By: littlelinny6 on 01-04-2011 21:51:08|
If the M's can't sign someone like Willy Aybar to play 1B/3B backup, do you think Matt Mangini is a candidate to make the team out of spring training? As a LHH, would you take Mangini on the roster over Tui? With Wilson, Figgins, and Ryan it seems the utility IF only needs to be able to play maybe 3B and 1B so it could be a fit rather than have Josh Wilson on the bench.
|2. By: Adam B. on 01-05-2011 10:01:29|
My concern is that the M's have so little depth for which to deal for talent like the aforementioned players.
Certainly you could trade someone like Ackley, Smoak or Pineda and get an impact player, but then you're only robbing Peter to pay Paul and creating a hole at a different position.
What the M's really need this year is for prospects aside from the top 3-4 to come through and establish themselves as valuable pieces.
Carlos Triunfel, Johermyn Chavez, Ji-Man Choi, Ramon Morla and James Paxton having good years would mean a lot for the M's ability to make their major-league product competitive.
|3. By: Edman on 01-05-2011 12:09:32|
Minor league talent in general is hard to predict. There are those few players who have enough ability to project. There will be kids like Franklin and Tenbrink who will rise and guys like Triunfel who's value deminishes with each year. There could be names that aren't apparent at this point in time. I certainly wouldn't expect anything from James Paxton. His number in the IL were pedestrian, to be kind. If you can't fool IL league batters, you sure aren't going to fool MLB hitters.
Who's gonna rise to the top this year? It's unclear. Some kids develop later than others. But Poythesis, Raben, and a few others could piece it all together. I think it's a matter of finding those kids with a good work ethic and that extra gear needed to be a ML player.
|4. By: rocketdawg31 on 01-05-2011 12:42:39|
Regarding Paxton, if anyone knows: I thought that he's not our property to worry about yet. Is he? I didn't catch any IL performances of his- but when did those happen? Wasn't he coming off an injury at the time? What's he been doing lately?
Paxton is a great big ol' unknown, I don't know if he'll ever be a factor.
Heck, for all we know, Triunfel becomes a monster this year at the plate.
Name any kid, any scenario. It could happen. The damnable thing about it is we gotta wait and see them play some games to have even a fraction of a clue.
|5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2011 12:50:53|
Paxton has not signed.
|6. By: Adam B. on 01-05-2011 14:08:50|
Nobody here is predicting which direction any given prospects' career will take. Plenty of MLB players make long careers for themselves with little to no prospect recognition in the minors, and just as many "can't fail" uber-spects fail to ever make it out of the gates.
The mention of Paxton was made with the assumption that if he for some ridiculous reason decides not to sign with the M's this Summer, his career as an athlete is effectively over.
My point is that it's all well and good to talk about trading for Player X, but until the M's have some depth to deal from, it doesn't make any sense.
Take Justin Upton; What Mariner fan wouldn't love to have his bat anchoring the middle of the line-up for the next few years? The problem is, you have to give up Ackley, Pineda and Franklin to get him, and then find players to fill the holes at First, Starting Pitcher and Short you've just created for yourself.
It's just as much a step backwards as it is forwards and until the Mariners have quality players to put around an Upton, and not just trade for him, it makes little sense.
|7. By: zackr on 01-05-2011 14:21:02|
I saw an ad for a scout school down in arizona. As a hobbyist, it would be fun to gain some knowledge over a couple of weeks to hopefully get a better eye for minor league talent.
Do you have any experience with these schools, or know of anything of the like a little closer to seattle?
|8. By: Edman on 01-05-2011 15:28:43|
Regarding Paxton, he and Boras have destroyed his career. He should have signed two years ago, and failing to do that, signed right away after Seattle drafted him. His numbers in the IL have the equivalent of a mid-rounds pick. He most likely lost several hundred thousand dollars with his decision to hold out.
You have to have mega-talent to pull that one off. He'll be lucky to get near a $100K contract.
Moral of the story: 500K in hand is better than two years in the bush leagues.
|9. By: Slack on 01-05-2011 17:31:18|
I doubt Paxton is worth more than slot at this point. He's had too much time off. Boras has a reputation to keep so I don't think the outlook for Paxton and the Mariners is good.
|10. By: Edman on 01-05-2011 18:39:25|
I got this from MLB Rumors:
Word is that Chris Young’s medicals don’t look great and he’s willing to accept a deal that guarantees him less than $2MM.
Willing to accept less than $2 million? He should dance for joy if someone gives him a $500K guaranteed contract. I guess I can't blame a guy for trying, but get real. He's pitched 198.1 innings in three years, his medicals according to this report aren't good, and he'd be willing to slum it for less than $2 million? Reality check time, Chris. Be greatful to find someone who'd be willing to give you a chance to revive your career, and not worry about millions of dollars.
|11. By: rocketdawg31 on 01-05-2011 19:14:44|
I've been thinking of the 2011 MLB draft lately, and had a question regarding it. Many have said it's an overall deeper year than last, particularly among college arms.
And as it stands RIGHT NOW (but very STC), Gerrit Cole would get the tab at #2 in the draft by us.
But IYO is this draft deep enough to reasonably have a shot in landing an impact bat in the early rounds (55,56,57, wherever the comp and sandwich picks end)? That's of course if McNamara thinks it's the best value to pick a bat at that time.
I realize that it's completely subjective of a question, and the gem of the draft can come somewhere after 1,000-plus have already been picked, for all we know. But if you could entertain with your best guess...possible? Realistic?
The only real hitter that everyone seems to completely salivate over is Rendon, and then there's a plethora of interesting athletes with solid skills across the board and/or upside- but questions and guesswork are on all of them, even Springer and Bradley,Jr....
|12. By: bodhizefa on 01-05-2011 20:06:22|
Any quick notes on Brian Goodwin, who I've read is transferring to community college so he'll be eligible for the 2011 draft (for those of you not in the know, Goodwin was suspended for the entire 2011 season at UNC Chapel Hill for "violating university policy".)
If Goodwin's background check comes up okay (i.e. if the school violation wasn't something our organization would shy away from him for), would Goodwin be a guy we might look at with our #2 pick? What are your thoughts on him, Jason?
|13. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-05-2011 21:49:23|
Barring a huge drop due to bonus demands, Goodwin has ZERO chance to make it to round 2. He could go as high as the top 10, but is certainly a first-round guy.
Yeah, I think so. I mean, you aren't likely to get Buster Posey or Jason Heyward, but you could get an average regular or better -- and there is always a minuscule shot that a better talent slips through the cracks, most likely a prep kid.
|14. By: FatBat on 01-06-2011 09:27:20|
Question Jason? I know you draft best player available but, it would seem to me that the Pirates have a plethra of talented possition players just recently brought up, McCutchen, tabata, pedro Alvarez and Neil Walker. When was the last time they had a pitching prospect of any real tallent come up thru there system? If the pirates want to contend (at some point) don't they need to look pitching? Cole or Purke? I mean the pirates have tallent, they neeeeeed pitching. And question two, I dont see a lot of difference between Cole or Purke and with Purke being a Lefty wouldnt that be a better fit, at number 2 for us? and if Rendon doesnt go first over all shouldnt we take Rendon? I keep looking and looking at the draft board and you have to figure need and ballpark in at some point right?
|15. By: on 01-06-2011 09:35:32|
Fatbat, it is worth considering that the Pirates' minor league system is pitching heavy, and their position player depth is poor. Much of their pitching talent is young, but they have the makings of potentially strong rotation.
I would be shocked if they didn't take Rendon, (if he continues to present himself as the top talent).
|16. By: Edman on 01-06-2011 09:48:17|
I think overthinking about who the M's are going to draft in 2011 is fruitless at this point. They are going to get a very good player, no matter who it is. If it's Rendon, fine. But Cole certainly isn't a bridesmaid in all this.
From the many years I've been watching baseball, there is virtually no value to drafting for need. For one thing, needs change from year to year. If indeed the M's drafted Clement because of lack of depth at catcher, instead of Tulo, because they believed that Betencourt was locked in at short, they made a tactical error.
Teams should always take the best player available with that high a pick. If they don't, they're foolish.
|17. By: bunvt on 01-06-2011 11:18:34|
I've never been a fan for drafting for need in baseball. One reason is that it's hard to predict how fast these draft picks will develop into major league ready players and by the time they are ready, that position of need might not be a need anymore.
Now if only the MLB could create a system where teams don't simply pass on a prospect b/c of their agent and signability concerns....
|18. By: rjfrik on 01-06-2011 11:41:57|
Ed and bun are right, don't draft for need ever! But if the Pirates have Rendon and Cole graded even (which they might by the time the draft rolls around) then they can justify drafting for need. If they are graded even in their front office and they think Cole will excel at a faster rate through the minors and help the big league club sooner (which he actually might) then they would draft the pitcher.
Lets not forget Cole is very very very good and arguably could be the number one by the time the draft rolls around.
|19. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2011 12:17:38|
Thing is, guys, teams do it all the time, so it's a legitimate inquiry... will the Pirates fill an organizational need?
It's possible. But if Rendon has a huge season and isn't demanding $10 million or more, the Pirates will draft him.
|20. By: slamcactus on 01-06-2011 12:18:13|
"Boras has a reputation to keep so I don't think the outlook for Paxton and the Mariners is good."
Boras controls the negotiations, but the final say on whether or not to walk away from the Ms' final offer, once all negotiation has finished and the deadline looms, belongs to his client. I would be shocked if James Paxton doesn't sign. He has virtually no leverage to speak of, and the alternative is entering a much stronger draft class than either of the past two.
"Minor league talent in general is hard to predict."
So is major league talent. Career-worst performances from Figgins, Bradley, Kotchman, Gutierrez, and Lopez all at once weren't exactly in anyone's crystal ball. Neither were breakouts from guys like Jose Bautista and Luke Scott, or the re-emergence of guys like Paul Konerko and Pat Burrell. This often gets lost in the "you can't rely on unpredictable prospects" discussions. Players generally collapse sometime between 30-38, sometimes earlier, occasionally later, but "athletic players tend to age better" is the best we've come up with for any kind of actual predictive ability. Good players suffer from down years, and it's tough to know whether that's actual collapse or an isolated bad performance. Players also break out.
All baseball players are unpredictable. It's the nature of the beast.
|21. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2011 12:18:16|
I can't speak for the school down there since I don't know who runs it.
|22. By: eknpdx on 01-06-2011 12:41:20|
Hey Jason, with regards to Liddi, do you factor in his Italian upbringing into his development? I don't know how advanced the baseball is in that country.
|23. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2011 13:01:26|
Not a lot at this point, ek, although I don't fully agree that Liddi isn't a big leaguer. I simply don't think he's a big-league regular, but I do think he can develop enough to help in a reserve role.
|24. By: baseballfan on 01-06-2011 13:08:03|
Regarding Paxton - He turned down $1 mil from Toronto because he wanted 1.35 I think - I believed that Paxton and Boras taught they could leverage the Canadian angle with the Jays - I hope he signs for significantly less -
of course, no matter what amount he signs for, Paxton & Boras will insist they have no regrets about rejecting
Toronto's offer and say it's the principle that matters(NOT).
|25. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 01-06-2011 13:22:48|
Jason I asked you awhile ago about where Liddi should start the 2011 season. My question now is if Liddi were a top level prospect who was destined to at least have a shot as an everday player but would take time to get to that point would he be more likely to repeat AA this year? Or more succintly, will he be pushed more aggressively because he is very probably not ever going to be a major league regular?
|26. By: Edman on 01-06-2011 14:38:48|
Paxton wanted $1.35 million, and he'll be extremely lucky if he gets $350K.
It was a bad gamble. And, had he signed just after Seattle drafted him, he was worth even more. A mediocre season in the IL just drove down his value.
Nobody will remember the Paxton's and Harrington's that Boras has hurt, and kids will continue to believe his sales pitch that they're worth more than they are.
|27. By: slamcactus on 01-06-2011 15:37:13|
The fact that you just brought up Harrington kind of undercuts that point, doesn't it Edman?
Like I said above, the decision to walk away from the team's offer was Paxton's, not Boras's. Numerous Boras clients have improved their bonus by waiting a year. Paxton understood the risks of not signing, and cockily walked away from big money to try and get more. He got burned. I'm not sure how that's Boras's fault unless you have any information that Boras somehow misled or misinformed his client about the risks involved in waiting a year.
If I had a kid who was a baseball phenom, I'd want Scott Boras representing him. That's just about the easiest call in all of sports.
|28. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2011 16:34:07|
Probably not, but it would depend on a ton of variables.
He originally wanted first-round money... if the Mariners won't guarantee him a decent bonus -- 350k is a joke, though Edman is not far off on that suggestion, if at all, considering -- but if that were the best offer Seattle made, Paxton would be better off not signing, but throwing early and often in the Indy League and doing it all over again.
|29. By: Edman on 01-06-2011 16:49:13|
Both Harrington and Paxton have the ultimate decision wheither to sign or not to sign. If you believe that Boras was urging both to sign and they refused, I'd find that extremely hard to believe. Boras sells his clients on what he believes they're worth. In some cases, he even "loans" them money with payment to be due after signing.
If indeed, he urged them to sign and they refused, so be it. But, most likely, he sold his position that they were worth more than they were being offered, and to hold out, with a verbal guarantee of more money.
They are exactly alike, and Paxton is headed down the same path. If he goes into the draft, he'll likely slip to the middle rounds. He'll be lucky to end up with a couple hundred grand for signing.
|30. By: johnburkland on 01-06-2011 18:42:02|
In fairness to Paxton, he turned down that Jay's deal with the expectation that he'd be able to return to school. The NCAA boned him and that's not in any way his fault. Hard to blame the kid for the utter absurdity of how the NCAA runs things.
That said, it's hard to see how he can afford not to sign and take another year off at this point.
Jason, if he doesn't sign does he just go back into the draft? Does he ever just become a free agent?
|31. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2011 19:45:27|
No, he doesn't, unless the draft is abolished before he signs.
|32. By: Missthosepilots on 01-06-2011 21:42:43|
I don't understand when pitchers like Paxton potentially cost themselves long term, even a career to get the short term. Jason, if a guy is a regular fielder it is one thing but the life of a pitcher is always hanging by one tendon. Do you see Paxtons in time genuinely costing themselves as a player, all money, etc., aside?
|33. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-06-2011 22:37:09|
I don't understand the question.
|34. By: dewey on 01-06-2011 23:51:11|
Ive read every quote hear i say we lose between 95 asnd 110 games sorry to be the bad guy but we arent good! The other teams in the west got good and we didnt to nothing but put bandaids on a bad product.,.,I love Jack when he got here b ut he isnt the same guy anymore..uncle!
|35. By: slamcactus on 01-07-2011 01:15:49|
"In fairness to Paxton, he turned down that Jay's deal with the expectation that he'd be able to return to school."
Eh, I'm not sure how much credit to give him for that, given that he dropped out of UK when he was ruled ineligible for NCAA. Somehow I don't think the allure of another year of academics (or even another year of frat parties) motivated his decision.
|36. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-07-2011 01:58:33|
No, that is definitely fair. Paxton didn't know the Nazis were going to stop him from returning to school to pitch. The fact that he left the school had zero to do with it.
|37. By: Edman on 01-07-2011 02:07:09|
#30, it's Paxton's agent's job to understand all the rules and regulations when it comes to the options he has. I'm not going to feel too sorry for him. It wasn't completely fair, but it's not like they made up special rules just for him. If so, he and his agent would have sued anyone and everyone responsible.
|38. By: Edman on 01-07-2011 02:14:54|
dewey, Jack isn't the same guy? Really? He morphed into brainless Jack? The things that changed are a lot of bad luck and fan perception. He made moves his first year, and they worked, for the most part. He made similar moves last year, and they didn't work.
Jack was given a shovel with a big hole in it, and managed to move some dirt, but eventually the hole was going to be a problem. It takes time to turnaround a team that was in as deep a hole as Seattle was in, when he took over the team.
Time will tell just how good he is. But two years isn't enough to know.
|39. By: Mackie on 01-07-2011 09:05:40|
Agreed, and I think he needs 4-5 years.
We will have to see how some of the kids he drafts do in the system and how soon they contribute for the M's. That takes time, and it takes patience. As the kids develop, he will try to keep the major league club as competitive as he can, given his budget contraints. I don't envy him his job!
The roster Zduriencik inherited was so full of holes, one or two fixes can't take care of the problem, even a couple of years into his tenure. It will require a series of fixes, and a number of those will probably just be temporary in nature.
For example, newcomers such as Brendan Ryan, Jack Cust and Miguel Olivo are certainly just here as placeholders, and should come nowhere near to resembling long-term solutions. Long-term solutions are (we hope) developing in the minors. If the kids don't pan out, then (we hope) the team can be augmented by key free-agent signings or other players acquired in trade once there is more wiggle room in the budget.
If a few things go Seattle's way this season, the Mariners could actually be in a position to climb out of last place. I am not hoping for much more than that for 2011, but by 2012 I think our expectations can be higher and justifiably so. Again, this is going to require some patience.
|40. By: safecochatter on 01-07-2011 09:21:30|
sure makes you wonder if the current economics will drive a bigger wedge between the haves and have nots in MLB. at least for a few years.
Go Eagles!! Go Eastern Washington!!
|41. By: bunvt on 01-07-2011 13:17:55|
I know it's an apples to oranges comparison and that makes this unecessary and pointless. But I'm bored at work, so anyone want to give a M's Comp to what the Cubs gave up for Garza? (My knowledge of the Cubs farm is very limited so I was curious).
|42. By: Jerry on 01-07-2011 13:20:10|
I was wondering how long it would take people to start scapegoating Jack.
For me, even the win-now moves he made were pretty shrewd. We got back way more than we gave up for Cliff Lee, even if you completely discount the value of having him pitch for us for a half season. Who wouldn't trade Aumont, Gilles, Ramirez, and fringe guys for Smoak, Beavan, Lueke, and fringe guys?
The only move I didn't like was the Morrow trade. Figgins wasn't nearly as bad as he seemed. Despite an absolutely brutal start, he still hit .259/.340/.306. I could see him bouncing back next year to something closer to his career numbers, maybe something .290/.370/.400. With very good defense at 3B, plus 40 SBs, that's a pretty good player. And since we don't exactly have a logjam of awesome 3B prospects at the upper levels of the system, he can help this club.
Sure, last season sucked. But Jack has this club on the right track. I hope that people don't rush to blame him for a very bad season. Even after the moves the club made last year, the 2010 club still have a wide range of potential outcomes. They were hardly a juggernaut.
Lets try to keep things in perspective. This club has a lot of young talent right now. They have the building blocks in place. They just need some time, and a bit more tinkering, to sort it all out.
|43. By: Jerry on 01-07-2011 13:31:27|
Actually, Paxton's situation was pretty unique. Nearly all notable amateur players who are drafted have representatives talk with ML clubs. And they should. I've always thought it was ridiculous to not allow kids the right to have experts advise them during one of the most important decisions they will make in their lives.
In 99.9% of the cases, players aren't ruled ineligible by the NCAA for this. Paxton's case was rather unique. The same thing happened to Andrew Oliver recently too. Its not like he was just being an asshole. He got hosed by the NCAA, who invoked a little-used rule. That rule is totally unfair, IMHO. Players should have the right to talk to people who can give them advice. The NCAA is a mafia. They don't have the players best interests in mind at all.
I thought that it was odd that Paxton/Boras didn't cut their losses and sign last year. But who knows what the negotiations were like. The M's could be strong arming them, knowing they don't have a lot of leverage. I just hope he signs, because the M's could use more pitching prospects.
|44. By: bunvt on 01-07-2011 13:34:10|
I'm one of those types that usually gets fired up over a GM, but then always immediately take a step back and take the point of view that in know way do I know what's going on behind the scenes for a GM as to appease everyone involved with an organization from Front Office, to Employees to the different types of fans from P.I readers to the casual bandwagoner, (and as most of us here probably wouldn't like to say, bandwagon fans are important too, their dollar spent is no different than mine). And I can sit at home and criticize Jack all day, b/c really, I have nothing to lose. With Bavasi, it was a short leash with his moves, with Jack, at least there's method in the madness, so I think you've got to give him time to produce results.
|45. By: studentofthegame on 01-07-2011 15:46:47|
Well most people are hung up on the lack of luster for this offseason, and I admit it has been pretty slow. But I cannot imagine the M's being as horrible as they were last year.
But the year before we had dramatic moves with Lee and Figgins and optimism could not have been higher. And in the end the team sucked to levels unknown to have existed. So maybe this offseason isn't quite as bad as we are thinking, and perhaps these moves will actually turn out better than we imagine.
Cust will be a solid upgrade at DH. Olivo will be an upgrade over last year (despite his obvious shortcomings, and I for one am excited to see Brendan Ryan flash some leather for the middle infield. Perhaps Figgins playing at his natural position will allow him to focus more on his offensive game as well. And best of all we still have a Cy Young winner leading our rotation.
Anyway, I am not typically an optimist. But all the pissing and moaning is really a drag. So for now I am gonna hope for decent baseball in a few months.
|46. By: rocketdawg31 on 01-08-2011 12:42:37|
Myself, I'm just thinking that for 2011 to be as bad as 2010, you'd almost have to see effort by the players directed that way.
Last year was just a fustercluck, a case where so many had the worst year of their professional lives and what talent there was just wasn't enough in the first place.
While I don't think it's realistic to expect the exact converse- a half-dozen players having the best year of their pro career to date all at the same time- it really just ought to be the normal ratio of 'good year/bad year' splits between players this season.
There isn't sweeping improvement, dramatic improvement...but this team should be better this year.
While I'm still wishing that the club hadn't scapegoated him (although, what else could they do, PR wise?), and that Wak still had his job- Eric Wedge has more ass-kick in him than Wakamatsu ever dreamed of having.
Jose Lopez is- mercifully to us- gone. That ALONE I see as an improvement. Putting so much faith into him and Betancourt really, really hurt- but now in Colorado, he can go become the "coulda-been-but-never-was" semi-regular player he seems to have chosen to be.
Now, if only guys like Ackley and Smoak are everything we think they can be, and someone like a Tenbrink or a Poythress shows us they've been greatly underestimated...I think this organization is really due for a beneficial bolt from the blue, maybe 2011 is where we see it happen.
How many days 'til spring training? Sigh. At least the Seahawks are on in an hour.
|47. By: Boy9988 on 01-08-2011 13:26:12|
This team in 2010 was so bad, its incomparable. I may not be very good with looking at players and being able to tell the holes in their game and what is a better approach or not, but I can read numbers. I have stared at the numbers for this team and teams past and others around the league and I have come to one conclusion. The 2011 Mariners are a vastly improved offense. There is no other way to put it. The pitching last season outside of the middle relief pitching, was great. The offense will be 100-125 runs better. This is assuming of course that the entire lineup will not once again have a massive deviation from each players career norms. That run improvement even includes the idea that the young players wont improve from last years numbers (ie Saunders, Smoak, Moore). I'm not saying the M's will compete, they are still one really big bat and a decent SP away from contending, but an 81 win season is well within reach. If things start falling into place with Smoak, Saunders, and Ackley comes up big, a higher win total isn't out of the question.
Then again, this is the Mariners...
|48. By: Slack on 01-08-2011 17:04:11|
Any thoughts on the Cubs trade for Matt Garza?
To me, its an interesting trade and it helps the Cubs a lot although I don't think it gets them over the top, especially when you consider what the Brewers did with their rotation.
What about the Rays? Do you think they got a good return?
|49. By: maqman on 01-09-2011 11:41:53|
The Rays got the best results from that trade IMO.
Some good posts above from #42 on down, with opinions I share.
|50. By: safecochatter on 01-09-2011 12:29:21|
i think the rays did well too.
but prospects are just that. some thought the marlins "fleeced" the tigers 3 years ago too. Marlins giving up Miguel and Dontrelle for pitchers Andrew Miller, Dallas Trahern, Eulogio De La Cruz and Burke Badenhop, outfielder Cameron Maybin, and catcher Mike Rabelo...
|51. By: dawgncarolina on 01-10-2011 00:15:01|
"Ive read every quote hear i say we lose between 95 asnd 110 games"
Not by anyone who has an ounce of baseball sense. Please provide a link to any halfway credible source who has said that.
I won't wait up.
|52. By: dewey on 01-10-2011 16:48:20|
Just one persons opinion i didnt know you where the only one who new anything about baseball! I thought this was a forum where people gave there opinion im sorry im not a hom er i just dont see where we have nearly enough Pitching at all and i dont see any power again so thats why i think that and i will stand by that..
|53. By: Boy9988 on 01-10-2011 17:34:28|
@dewey - The team's pitching isn't the problem. Seattle had the second best starter ERA in the AL last year. Our middle relief was horrible, but hopefully Lueke and Cortes will be able to help out in that department. The offense is already better with Cust, Smoak and Olivo(sad as that fact may be). These three positions for most of the year were literal black holes in the offense. Its all but impossible for them to be as bad again. Last year this team could barely hit, not to mention doing so for power. The offense really has no where to go but up.
|54. By: StandinPat on 01-10-2011 17:57:36|
Dewey, there is a huge difference between "giving your opinion" and just posting outlandish statements that a) defy common sense and b) are accompanied by no actually reasoning or data to support such claims
|55. By: dewey on 01-10-2011 22:23:16|
So i guess you guys think Vargas and Fister our gonna pitch that well again? Well i dont! I guess we our hoping Bedard finally is ready after 3 surgerys? Our every team has been wrong on Paulley and what he did last year wasnt a mirage?Louke i love ownership has made it very tough i truly dont thin k they will allow this guy a fair chance.Who is gonna pick up Cliff Lees starts? So Cust is better then Branyon?As for yoy standing pat if im not mistaken Tony B elangio had all of this data for our Mariners last year how did that work out? Data dont play the games good players do.I want the Mariners to get back to there winning days but this group of players isnt good im sorry for being honest and i wont respond on this matter again have a good year in last place again ouch that hurts being a true Mariner fan.
|56. By: StandinPat on 01-11-2011 20:11:07|
I wouldn't be surprised to see Vargas and Fister pitch to a rough equivalent of what they did in 2010. I'm not hoping for a damn thing from Bedard. Pauley was exactly what he was suppose to be, a 26 yr old with decent stuff and ok command, a guy who would be a solid swing man type with a slight improvement in command, and shocking as it might seem, a 26 yr old pitcher had a decent improvement in command and became a decent major leaguer... I know, you me and David Aardsma are all shocked. Not sure what to make of the Lueke Comment. Who's gonna pick up Cliff Lee's Starts? Someone not named RRS, Ian Snell, or (hopefully) Luke French. I'm not sure what Tony Belangio has to do with you not being able to offer up any data or reasoning behind your opinion. The fact remains, that the Mariners are in line to see a significant improvement on their win-loss record, not a regression as you seem to continually chant.
|Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central|
Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome