| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 01-10-2013 |
Justin Upton has reportedly rejected a trade to the Seattle Mariners, invoking his limited no-trade clause, a list that includes the M's as well as the Red Sox, Cubs and Blue Jays.
The buzz right now is about what the Mariners offered the Arizona Diamondbacks. The information I am getting varies, so I can't divulge, and just prior to publishing this I was told the M's "may have been getting two players back, not just Upton."
As for what the actual offer was, we may never know -- we almost certainly will never know -- but it's difficult to believe the D-backs would have taken a deal not headlined by right-hander Taijuan Walker.
Other names mentioned to me include relievers Charlie Furbush, Stephen Pryor, Carter Capps, left-hander Danny Hultzen and shortstop Brad Miller, but I have to believe Walker was part of it.
Walker is where I have drawn the line for months. If it were a straight-up 1-for-1, I'd consider it strongly. Walker plus others for three years of Upton? No thanks.
upton-rejects-deal-to-m\'s
Comments
The following 252 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: masonb on 01-10-2013 17:57:10 So is this deal officially dead or are we looking at a situation where it could go through once Seattle offers money to Upton? |
| 2. By: Gibbo on 01-10-2013 17:59:24 Thst the million dollar question that I dont think anyone knows... has he flat oput said no or is he just wanting his agent to get some more money to waive the NTC |
| 3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-10-2013 18:05:43 I have to believe the past 3-5 days have been spent talking to Upton's reps about just that. "How can we make this work?" I think it's dead, at least until all other trade options dry up from Upton's perspective, particularly Atlanta. |
| 4. By: formerstarQB16 on 01-10-2013 18:14:32 Do you think Hultzen & Walker were are part of it, or was it a one or the other? Only way I would consider including both (along with secondary players) is if we got Skaggs along with Upton and I don't think there's anyway the D-Backs included both. Obviously Jack likes Upton. |
| 5. By: Gibbo on 01-10-2013 18:14:52 If that is the case then you would have to think that there is little chance for the deal to come back to play. Because would Z really want him if he turned down offers including some additional financial incentive to waive the trade already? |
| 6. By: jordan on 01-10-2013 18:15:26 This would happen to the Mariners.I personally believe he just doesnt want to come to Southern Alaska. Whoever said that our geography location has nothing to do with a disadvantage, Point Made. |
| 7. By: formerstarQB16 on 01-10-2013 18:21:02 Considering the other teams on his no trade list (Toronto, Cubs, BoSox... and Yankees last year), it seems it has much more to do with money than location, ballpark, or team. |
| 8. By: Mackie on 01-10-2013 18:29:33 According to MLBTradeRumors, "The Mariners offered a four-player package to the D'Backs, according to Scott Miller of CBS Sports. Arizona would have received Nick Franklin, Charlie Furbush, Stephen Pryor and one of Taijuan Walker, Danny Hultzen or James Paxton." A pretty steep price. If there are other teams who want Upton and for whom he says it's OK to be traded to, and if he doesn't want to come to Seattle, how about a 3-team deal. AZ sends Upton somewhere where he wants to go, like Atlanta maybe. The Braves send us a hitter, and so does AZ. Could something like that be made to work? |
| 9. By: Paul Martin on 01-10-2013 18:32:21 Rejected again! If we offered Walker, Franklin, Furbush and others I am glad it fell through. Save our bullets for next year when Stanton becomes available. Upton seemed like a head case and I can't ignore his numbers away from the desert heat. Hope he is stuck in Arizona another year! |
| 10. By: cpuglisi on 01-10-2013 18:34:27 I would have never have done this trade from the start. these are normally the moves a gm makes to get fired. leave the young guys here and let them jell. the only reason we are talking about the mariners trade practically there whole farm system for a guy that had a down year and cannot hit for beans out of arizona anyway becuse the mariners have not been relevent since 2003.fans, stop incouraging mariner front office people to make moves like this.classic mariner trade prosal thank you Jupton you just saved mariner fans from another bad deal added to their history. |
| 11. By: Mackie on 01-10-2013 18:43:40 @9, +1! |
| 12. By: Paul Martin on 01-10-2013 18:47:21 That move sounds like something Bavasi would do, not Jack. Please tell me he is not desperate? Being on the last year of his deal, do we give the guy an extension and tell him to relax? |
| 13. By: Gibbo on 01-10-2013 18:47:35 Although we dont know exaclty, sounds like we were giving up 2 bullpen arms Franklin and one of Walker/Hultzen or Paxton. So if it was Paxton or Hultzen then maybe its OK???? I am not an expert when evaluating trades but sounds like it is dead anyway. |
| 14. By: rjfrik on 01-10-2013 19:05:57 I think Paxton (if it was him), Franklin and two bullpen arms is worth Upton. Paxton and Franklin are still prospects and Upton is an All-Star MLB player who is still very young. Maybe Upton turns the corner in hometown teal. I would not have done it if it was Walker or Hultzen though. |
| 15. By: Buhner on 01-10-2013 19:07:01 I have a feeling this isn't over. |
| 16. By: titans12 on 01-10-2013 19:13:35 I am so bummed. God all of this loosing we cant even get players to come here by trades. |
| 17. By: rotoenquire on 01-10-2013 19:18:56 Upton 6.75 2013 9.75 2014 14.25 2015 14.5 2016 Could make contract changes to get it done. 8 2013 11 2014 16 2015 17 2016 20 2017 |
| 18. By: Paul Martin on 01-10-2013 19:30:43 @14, I agree with you about Walker and Hultzen. I also wonder if Arizona was sending us someone IN ADDITION to Upton? |
| 19. By: Paul Martin on 01-10-2013 19:34:59 @17 based on the teams Upton had on his no trade clause list (teams that had money to spend this offseason and who needed offense) you would think Upton just wanted more money. But I got the impression Seattle tried to get him to change his stance and he wouldn't. It does seem strange that Jack would be willing to give up so much talent but not pay him the money he wants to accept a trade??? Jason, can you provide more insight on this? |
| 20. By: marinermutt on 01-10-2013 19:54:47 If the rumored players were in fact those players, then you have to look at the KC - Tampa trade back in December. Look how much KC gave up for Shields. Now Shields is a good pitcher but not a TOR arm. Myers would be considered probably a top 5 prospect in baseball. And they gave up other prospects, though not that highly thought of. Now compare Upton to Shields. I don't think there is any comparison. Now I'm glad the deal didn't go thru but the price for a young potential star OF who has 3 years left on his contract is going to cost us. |
| 21. By: rocketdawg31 on 01-10-2013 21:06:05 Count me among the ones happy there's no trade. Hell of a price tag, I'm virtually certain Walker would have been the one of "the Big 3" to go. Because the Snakes are under no obligation whatsoever to trade Upton at this time. Why would they move off of a demand for the BEST arm in the minors we have? I agree that landing a talent like Upton is going to hurt...but IMHO this would've been too much if Walker headlined the deal. Hultzen or Paxton, maybe I'd've been okay with. But only if there were other parts besides Upton in the trade that we could use on the big league roster. |
| 22. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 01-10-2013 21:15:11 Larry Stone of Times says "UPDATE 8:45: Jon Heyman of CBS just tweeted that Taijuan Walker was the "Big Three" pitcher who would have gone to Arizona in the proposed trade." I think this is too much...Jack must really want to get Upton and I bet he will. I trust his judgement. |
| 23. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 01-10-2013 21:22:24 Oh come on...Jack Z is not getting fired. Even if Upton does not work out. It would not be Jack's fault. M's were just reported to be 2nd best minor league system in MLB. There is no way he gets fired. Who would you bring in to compete with his progress. There is still plenty of prospects in the system. |
| 24. By: dafix_isin on 01-10-2013 21:26:34 Now that we're hearing that the Big 3 arm may have been Walker, I too am kinda relieved that Upton vetoed this trade. We may look back on it in a couple of years and wonder what the M's were thinking (though we currently know of course; we need another bat!). One of the few scenarios in which I can stomach giving up Walker is as part of a larger package that returns Giancarlo Stanton. Pipe dreaming, at its finest. |
| 25. By: FatBat on 01-10-2013 21:29:14 We get upton for 3 yrs and we give up two good relievers Franklin and walker who we all new would be in the deal anyways? Com'on is that a lot? Yes but we new that and we still wanted him. Upton was not getting traded with out a top ten prospect in the deal. We keep hultzen ( close to MLB ready) Paxton and zunino. Um this is good. I would rather pay a lot less and get morse but to get upton you have to pay. Too many people here over value prospects! Walker is still a was away and Franklin's carrier could depend on ballpark. Upton who may not be great but is a young proven MLB talent. Walker could be Ryan Anderson. Calm down. People who thought this was a bad over pay should stop making trade ideas on here for top MLB players. They are not equivalent talent. Was it a lot yes. That is the price. Jack can always get one over on someone jeez |
| 26. By: FatBat on 01-10-2013 21:32:24 That is jack can't always get one over on some one. My bad |
| 27. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 01-10-2013 21:39:41 IT is reported to look like it is a DEAD deal. I hope not. M's need a Hitter #4 and Upton would provide that. Last year he was not great but after reading USSMariner's post about Upton and different ballparks I think it is worth Walker and Franklin...hope it was just Upton wanting more money |
| 28. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 01-10-2013 21:41:35 And losing Franklin is not a big deal...he was going to end up at 2B anyway and M's have plenty of those prospects. I am glad not Miller going. he is a SS and probably only one in M's system. |
| 29. By: Edman on 01-10-2013 21:53:49 #19, are you in the habit of making stuff up? Who said it was about the money? You are assuming, so don't state it as some form of fact. It's not. Be fair and don't put your assumptions out there as if they are fact. |
| 30. By: candasharp on 01-10-2013 22:12:45 Would we give up a lot of prospects for Upton? Absolutely. However, they are all prospects (except for Furbush) and Upton is an established major league player. I love Walker and I hope he is a great pitcher whther its in Seattle or some other place. Yet the risk remains that he turns into Ryan Anderson, Roger Salkeld, Brien Taylor, David Clyde, Todd Van Poppel or a dozen other top talents that for some reason or another don't make it. If you can trade young pitching for young hitting, you make the deal. Look at the Montero and Pineda deal last year. Pryor is talented but fungible in our system. Same with Furbush. Franklin is the big piece as he gives Arizona an offensive option when Gregorius ends up hitting at the Mendoza line or as a partner at 2nd base. Bottom line is that Upton is established and you can deal prospects for established talent, especially if what you are trading is pitching. |
| 31. By: rightwingrick on 01-10-2013 22:22:46 The Upton trade was one based on our depth and strengths. Walker is another year away, at least, and struggled at AA. Franklin looks like a good bat, but his range at SS is questionable, and he is likely a 2B guy, where we have a very good young player in the majors; and we have a better SS prospect in th minors in Brad Miller. We have three lefties in the pen, so one can go, and we have Capps and Pryor coming up, so one can go...and we aren't devastated. Upton, meanwhile, had an "off year" at age 24 that was by far better than any player on our entire team, and the year before was an all-star at age 23. Peak years generally happen between 26-29, so the best is yet to come. In addition, he filled a right field need, a middle-of-the-order need, brings speed and defense. From a strictly baseball perspective, what's not to like? We give up talent, but it's talent where we have depth and aren't killed by giving it up. But we get back a very young all star outfielder who's under long term contract and is probably going to have a monster season here real soon. I'd make the trade. And I'd still be working with Upton's agent to see how to make it happen. |
| 32. By: rocketdawg31 on 01-10-2013 22:35:16 I'm thinking the Upton talks are dead. And that Atlanta will step in and bite a big bullet, trade for him. For whatever reasons (and I'm going with the "doesn't wanna hit in Safeco for 3 years before he turns Free Agent" school of thought), I think Upton's "Fuck it, no Seattle" stance remains firm. And what happens now is that I bet Seattle switches gears. Arizona still has a glut of ML-regulars in their outfield. We still have young pitching. We're still matching up fairly well in a trade. I bet they go after Gerardo Parra now. I realize that this is NOT the rosterbation thread...but if they want Furbush and Pryor, fine. Parra plus maybe a high-minors bat with some promise would be worth Paxton/Pryor/Furbush to me. And no. I don't for any reason surrender Taijuan Walker. For Upton, perhaps. I think the trade that got nixed was too high on our part. Waaaaaay too high. But if you're going with Parra, you don't have to give up Walker or Franklin, I'm thinking. |
| 33. By: FatBat on 01-10-2013 22:52:09 Rightwingrick. Agreed! Well put. I think it's interesting that his no trade teams are not Seattle Baltimore KC San Diego. Boston? Toronto? Seams bad teams are not the reason but possible destination is. Kudos to his agent. This could turn into a 72 hour window thing. Does jack really go blind into a trade offer with Arizona knowing upton has them on there no trade list? Upton is getting 9.75 and swisher is getting 15? It could just be about money. Leverage |
| 34. By: Gibbo on 01-10-2013 23:13:42 Hey thought some people that are not on twitter might like this message from David Aardsma.... Upton missed out big time not going to Seattle, great city, great fans. #doesntknowwhatheismissing That is one classy statement from the DA and nice to see a player throwing out some support for us. |
| 35. By: Edman on 01-10-2013 23:49:58 Sometimes, the best deals are the one you didn't make. Unfortunately, there will be a ton more speculation to go around, as those who foamed at the mouth for Upton, will hold on the the thinnest of threads to keep their hope alive. I suspect that if it was leaked now, it's because there is little to no hope for negotiation. I cannot imagine that after giving up that big a bounty, that Jack would be willing to over-pay Upton to be a Mariner with additional years. |
| 36. By: Gibbo on 01-11-2013 00:03:44 I tend to agree that it may well be over for this deal, but I would have thought that Jack may of been happy to extend him and give him 2 more years for his 28 and 29 years , but from Uptons perspective you would have to think he would prefer to get to free agency. |
| 37. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 00:11:24 With greedy baseball players, who knows. He might what Seattle to remove years from his contract, so he could be a free agent even sooner. |
| 38. By: Gibbo on 01-11-2013 00:52:20 Yep and then there is no way I make the deal. Giving up Franklin and Walker I would want to mow we a getting 3 years. I guess we will know within a day or so if there is any hope of the deal going through |
| 39. By: whereswoody on 01-11-2013 01:52:44 As I have commented one time before about this, Uptons career splits are a joke. I know the fences are being moved in but still, even if Safeco is a middle of the pack hitters ball park next year, these numbers do not look promising at all. This looks like a recipe for a bust. If anyone has any ideas of what factors besides the ball park itself could make up the large discrepancy, please? Home 364(G) 67(HR) 219(RBI).307(AVG) .937(OPS) Away 367(G) 41(41) 144(RBI) .250(AVG) .731(OPS) |
| 40. By: Lamda on 01-11-2013 02:34:05 holy cow that was too much for him. Kind of screams of desperation from Z to me which is sad. Granted we don't know all the specifics - Jason has speculated another player was coming back our way and maybe that was someone substantial on their ML roster or prospect-wise to lesson the blow. I would have much rather added in Seager to the existing package to lure Stanton away from the Marlins. |
| 41. By: docsmith on 01-11-2013 04:13:05 No thank you. I hope the "rumored" package is wrong or that we were getting someone in addition to Upton back. But if this was 4 for 1, I don't view it as a gross overpay, but I am glad it didn't happen. I agree we were trading from the three "surpluses" that we have, pitching prospects/middle infield prospects/relief pitchers for a talent position we really lack--slugging OF. But what makes this unbalanced is Walker and that Upton is only signed for three more years. Even if those are great years, I don't think he changes the fact that we won't really be ready to compete (unless stars align) until 2014-2015. Then, when our core is coming into their own, he is gone. The flip side is all the young controllable talent, especially Walker. Substitute Paxton into that package and I likely make the trade. No...I am glad this didn't happen. I am ready to pay the price and lose some players/prospects, but that seemed a bit too much of a loss if we were only getting Upton back. |
| 42. By: John_S on 01-11-2013 05:32:50 @29 I agree don't make assumptions and make it as fact From Winter Meetings Day 4 Live Blog By: Edman on 12-07-2012 14:07:38 maqman, would you hire someone with a track record of having to move on to a new job every year? It either means they can't commit, or that they wear out their welcome. In baseball terms, it usually means he's not a good teammate. You don't see Washington rushing to sign him. |
| 43. By: Ianyo on 01-11-2013 06:01:20 Does nobody else think his 2012 season's drop in production was due to his injured thumb? Once healed in September, he hit much better than he had at any point previously in 2012. His slugging went from .379 in April and May to .544 in September. That's a huge increase. I think he's going to bounce back and make everyone wish he was in a Mariner uniform. He's still only 25 and fairly cheap. Sure, losing Walker stings and I prefer it not happen but we should have money in the coming seasons and Walker could be replaced via free agency (Not necessarily the WAR/price numbers but a solid, near TOR starter.) Would you guys prefer: -Justin Upton -one of Garza, Josh Johnson, Jon Lester (club option), Tim Lincecum, James Shields or Adam Wainwright. -Luetge and another lefty Or -Shin-soo Choo/Granderson/Ellsbury, -Walker -Franklin -Pryor and Furbush I suppose it all depends on what everyone thinks of Franklin really. If he's our Shortstop of the future, this trade looks a lot worse. If he's a second baseman in actuality, the loss makes it much easier to handle. To me, it boils down to spending your money on a 25 year old hitter that should command a nine figure deal on the open market through trade and signing pitching (which should be much easier to do in Seattle) or hoping your prospects hit and filling the remaining holes with a couple above average bats and rolling with an even cheaper core. It's really hard to think a Justin Upton acquisition is could hurt the team more than it could help. |
| 44. By: Ianyo on 01-11-2013 06:05:51 I also totally forgot Brad Miller. Who by from what I hear isn't much further from Nick Franklin in terms of ability and upside. So... Would you guys prefer: -Justin Upton -one of Garza, Josh Johnson, Jon Lester (club option), Tim Lincecum, James Shields or Adam Wainwright. -Brad Miller -Luetge and another lefty Or -Shin-soo Choo/Granderson/Ellsbury -Walker -Franklin -Pryor and Furbush |
| 45. By: Galway on 01-11-2013 06:25:07 I think Upton's thumb was a legit issue last year but in general so is being young. Young guys are often inconsistent and a large part of maturity is getting more consistent. I hope if Walker was included there was a second player coming back to add a little value. I would not alone put Walker in just for Upton but same token as rare of a prospect that Walker is he is unlikely to be throwing an MLB pitch for two years. Desperate? well since this offense has been historically bad over the past cycle and there simply is no big outfield bat in the system Z does have to be aggressive since free agents seem to be cool towards Seattle as of now. Steeper price than I like but if a single agressive trade then begrudgingly ok, multiple like that then that is hugely wrong in my view. |
| 46. By: Ianyo on 01-11-2013 06:32:09 I'd like to know how people feel right now about the Montero/Pineda deal. Same type of trade (trade depth for need) except the bat is the more raw player in that case. |
| 47. By: dewey on 01-11-2013 06:42:59 I know the deal is dead but there was a deal made and it sounded even that we didnt get the true names of the 4 players going to Az that JZ was pulling a Bavasi and trading alot of the rebuild pieces. That has to be a little concerning it was to me. |
| 48. By: rth1986 on 01-11-2013 08:19:17 Count me in as relieved that this trade didn't go through. If what was reported was true, that was an elite package for a non-elite player. I'd like Upton at the right price, but not that one (esp. if it included Walker and Franklin, instead of Paxton and Miller). I hope Jack and co. can get creative and do something unexpected. |
| 49. By: brianv on 01-11-2013 08:24:31 I would rather surrender the 12th pick this year and sign Bourn than give up this kind of haul for a solid player who we have to hope has perennial all-star future. Too much of a gamble for me while we a just now starting to see the benefits of developing the farm system. |
| 50. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 09:19:00 I've been processing all this for the last day and have come up with these opinions about why Upton doesn't want to come to Seattle... 1) I think that Upton wants to play with his brother first and foremost, because he knows that his next contract won't be with Atlanta, and it's unlikely B.J. signs with the same team in 5 years that Justin signs with in 3 years as BJ will be best suited for a corner outfield position by then when he's 33. The Upton brothers probably feel like this is the best chance they have of playing together and their parents were complaining about the travel with trying to be at allthe playoff games during the 2010 playoffs. So part of it would be about making things easier on their parents in terms of them being at the games and of course part of this is a little brother wanting to play with his big brother. 2) Seattle has no history of winning and I think they have to make their team much better on paper before he'll consider them for real. 3) Hamilton made the comment that he didn't want to be the main guy in Seattle and having another big bat there would have helped sway him to making a deal with Seattle, but since there was no MOTO bat here he felt like it would have been too much pressure. Maybe Justin feels the same way? 4) He could want to be compensated with a lucrative deal to guarantee that Safeco doesn't screw him and Zduriencik may have offered a 3-year extension and he may have been thinking something like a 4 or 7 year deal. My conclusion: Towers is going to have to say that Atlanta s totally out of the picture, and tell him and his agent that if he can go to Seattle and hit, he'll set himself up for a bigger payday than putting up similar numbers in Arizona. He can always look to sign with Atlanta for a year or two if he needs to rebuild some value, so having a hard time in Seattle isn't the end of the world since he'll only be 27 as a free agent. He can tell him that if he wants out of Arizona it's now or never. If I was Towers and wanted him gone, I'd be the kind of ass that would tell him, take the deal to Seattle or I'll use you as a platoon bat against only lefties with Parra getting most of the at bats in RF, just to get back at you for not taking the deal to Seattle. You want to talk about flushing his value, don't worry about Safeco Justin, tell your agent Larry that we have something worse than park factors to throw at you if you don't take the deal. Tell the league he's a platoon bat by not playing him against RH pitchers and imply as much with comments from management. Considering Texas is out of the deal, Atlanta isn't really interested, and all other teams that want him are on his no-trade list (Boston, likely Chicago NL and Toronto), I would suspect that Arizona would get next to nothing for him anyways if he doesn't end up in Seattle. It should also be noted that this isn't an overpay by the Mariners, it's a high price to pay, but not extreme. So that means the other offers on the table were what you might pay for Michael Saunders, not Justin Upton, so it's not like they'd be shooting themselves in the foot by playing him only 200 ABs in 2013, since they still would have two more years to raise his value. But it would make for a long year for Upton. Nobody said Justin had to stay in Seattle past 2015 if he doesn't want to, but I would be pissed if I was Towers that he couldn't just use his no-trade protection to get some extra money instead of screwing my organization. This may not be over, we might never hear it, but I wouldn't put it past Towers to offer some consequences like I just meantioned if he doesn't go to Seattle. It's clear that he doesn't want Upton there any longer. |
| 51. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 09:26:54 One stat for you guys. Upton and Stanton both had the same average velocity for their HRs in 2012. 107.2mph. Considering that Upton makes more contact and was dealing with a sore thumb for parts of last season, I'd say his game power is equal to Giancarlo Stanton's game power. Remember that the harder you swing, the more you're going to lower your contact rate. Considering he's about 10% higher than Stanton, says he's not over-swinging to keep up in the power department. It says that he might be every bit his equal and if he stays healthy, he might end up being the better player in a couple years. Just a thought. I'm not saying it's likely he's the better player, but it's not impossible. |
| 52. By: Hailcom on 01-11-2013 09:34:37 As with most here, I have mixed feelings about the potential trade that Upton has blocked. Giving up the longer term hope for Walker et al for the nearer term (and in my mind, more likely) hope of Justin Upton as All-Star performer in the line-up was a reasonable gamble to me. However, I think the deal is dead and for a reason not highlighted above that I saw, so I thought I'd at least raise it--though I acknowledge it is speculative deduction. What if Justin Upton likes warm weather and his plan is to try to make that happen both now and after his current deal ends? His deal only gives him the right to block 4 teams, so he (with advice of his agent) picks the 4 most likely teams to want to trade for him with what he considers the worst weather/unpleasant environment so he can control where he lives. At this point, he figures in three years at age 27 he can pick his spot with a huge contract, knowing that Arizona will be a good place for him to keep up his numbers. Yeah, it's no fun being on the trading block, but he gets to give the finger to Towers in return (like yesterday). If he doesn't like rain and cold Springs and he thinks his numbers might be depressed in Seattle--thus impairing his ability to get his next megadeal, it's not crazy for him to block it. All we can do is speculate. That's my guess. |
| 53. By: Ianyo on 01-11-2013 09:54:13 I agree WSChamps. I think people are really selling Upton short. |
| 54. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 09:55:08 WSChamps2014, I think you're off in a few places. 1. That's a mighty big assumption you got going there that Justin wants to unite with his brother. I suppose it's possible, but doubtful to happen no matter how much he wishes for it. 2. Seattle has no history of winning? You must have been born too late. The Mariners were a very good team from 1993 thru 2002. They developed into one of the best teams in the AL. You can argue recent history, but your statement is inaccurate and shows a lack research. 3. Poor Josh Hamilton. According to your statement, he's such a wuss that he doesn't want take responsibility on his shoulders. When you're paid $20 million or more a year, it comes with the territory. 4. Upton wants an extension? Then let him prove he's a superstar worthy of an extension. You can't have the kind of question marks he does and expect to be rewarded for it. Well, that's a bit inaccurate. Many players see themselves as superstars, but that doesn't make it reality. 5. Have we really gotten to the point where we analyze the velocity off a bat, and call it telling? It's an interesting stat, but what kind of distance did each average. That is the important stat to me. It's like having a 100 MPH fastball, but no ability to throw it in the strikezone. How far someone hits the ball is more important. I have no problem debating things, but try to keep the spin as realistic as possible. |
| 55. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 10:00:25 All in all, it doesn't really matter why Upton didn't want to be traded to the Mariners. Whatever it is, probably won't be fixed. So, you wave to him, call him whatever names you wish, and move on. |
| 56. By: Galway on 01-11-2013 10:11:31 Really would've loved to have Hamilton but if those were his comments about another MOTO bat and pressure I really give him credit. Simple fact he sses bigger th baseball. Giving himself a chance to suceed both on and off the field by letting Pujols, Trout carry a lot weight on their shoulders is probably a really smart move for him. Upton is a nice player with a full set of tools but in terms of power no he is not in he same league as Stanton. |
| 57. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 10:44:56 Upton's sixth tool might be a problem......the one in his head. |
| 58. By: rjfrik on 01-11-2013 11:03:19 To me Walker was too much to give up with the other three players, unless the M's were getting another piece outside of Upton. Which they might have. It would be curious to know if that was truly the case. Yes, Upton is a 25 year old slugger, a big bat, no doubt. But for those tha think some of us are selling Upton short, my response to you would be that you are selling Walker short. Walker is no Ryan Anderson or Roger Salkeld or any other Mariner pitcher who never made it. The best comparison I have for Walker is Felix Hernandez. Yes Felix was better at Walker's age in his career, but Felix had been pitching his whole life and Walker was a basketball player is whole life until his junior year in High School. So Felix had a couple of years on Walker. Walker as a 19 year old pitcher (the youngest in AA) dominated men 3 and 4 years older then him on most days out, yes he had a speed bump here and there, but his performance last year was impressive for a guy who had only been pitching for 4 years. He's a guy who could see the big leagues this year. His throwing motion is like a baby's butt. It's damn near flawless. It's uncanny how he looks like Felix when he came up, how the guy can get so much velocity on a baseball without looking like there's any effort. With a 4 seem changeup, an improving curve and now a cutter added to his 99 mph fastball the kid is set up to be a force on the mound. I know pitchers fail and are fragile, but there's also pitchers out there that are just pitchers, it's what they were meant to do on this earth and no matter how much they throw they retain their stuff. Guys like Carlton, Ryan, Clemens, Smoltz, Schilling, Holladay, Felix, Kershaw. And I believe Walker is on the path to be a pitcher like that, a durable workhorse. I like Upton and I would love to see him as a Mariner, but Walker and the three other guys were just too much. As Jason has mentioned before, he might do a Walker for Upton deal straight up. Might is the key word here. Walker is good! |
| 59. By: VikingArthur on 01-11-2013 11:35:37 I am happy that Upton rejected this deal. I'd be on board with Walker for Upton but anything more seems like an overpay. There are ton of guys around the league I like more who are similar (Bruce for example). |
| 60. By: maqman on 01-11-2013 11:45:25 Upton would not perform nearly as well in Safeco as he has in Arizona, Franklin and Walker can be as good or better value to the club over the next three years and won't cost them $13MM a year. The M's will play .500 or better as is and will know better next off season what their real needs are and still have the money and prospects to fill them more economically. Furbush and Pryor are also valuable, not big time but not nothing either. |
| 61. By: jgthompson21 on 01-11-2013 11:49:22 #57- You call everyone out that makes assumptions fact and yet here you are: "Upton's sixth tool might be a problem......the one in his head." Kettles calling, you going to answer it pot? |
| 62. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 12:03:52 jgthompson, feel better now? I did not say it was fact, now did I? I said "might", meaning I don't know that it's a fact, but an observation. See the difference? Have a great day when you return from the playground. |
| 63. By: jgthompson21 on 01-11-2013 12:06:29 So one can attack others, but can't take it. I love it. Shows the real character of a person. Carry on. |
| 64. By: d2ret on 01-11-2013 12:10:07 That is my major concern Edman. On paper, the prospect value for MLB player value is actually pretty fair (especially considering the 2nd player to Seattle in the deal). But the game is not played on paper. I just dont like the makeup of the player we are getting back, for the price we are paying. I really dont like that price when I consider the great to special makeup that has been wittnessed and talked about from both of the headlined prospects we are potentially giving up. I fear Uptons lack of maturity and focus to be a hinderance towards fulfilling his dreamt upon potential. He would need to grow as a person, and Im not signing up for that, not at that big a cost. Let me be clear. I love the player, but not at that price. Leave Walker out of the deal. I like him as much as Bundy for future MLB careers because of his height, great athletic frame, extremely easy delivery, and great mental makeup. All those factors (to me the makeup is very very important) point towards a durable horse of an ace. I can see us winning a WS with him and Felix at the top, if we can keep Felix around long enough. SF and STL have proven to me how to win a WS in the modern, post steroid era.. Ace pitching. Balanced offense. I dont get itchy to trade Walker until Stantons name comes up. |
| 65. By: sexymarinersfan on 01-11-2013 12:13:15 I "think" that Edman "might" be a problem on this site in my "opinion". Lol You see how I did that?! ;-) |
| 66. By: MarinerCoug on 01-11-2013 12:18:41 The only aspect of this deal that would have bothered my would have been only having 3 years of Upton. If he would have been agreeable to a 2 yr, 40 mil extension, making him roughly 5/80 player for the Ms, I would have been completely on board. Yes, Taijuan Walker has the pure upside to be very special. But you know what, so too did Ryan Anderson, and Jesse Foppert, and Bill Pulsipher... the list goes on and on. Arms are extremely risky, and Justin Upton is a good player. If Upton ever relents and is ammenable to a fair extension, I will be ok with that package. |
| 67. By: d2ret on 01-11-2013 12:20:25 what rfjrik said!!!!!!! Walker is awsome!!!!!! Watch him!!!! He makes Chris Tillman, when we traded him, look like a Blake Beavan. |
| 68. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 12:22:25 jgthompson, you mean like your lack of character in trying to compare my statement about Upton, to your thoughts about me? I can take attacks quite well, thank you. But, your comment was simply attempted retaliation. I can accept John_S in post #42, it's a fair assessment. I still believe that Jackson has character flaws, but I was wrong to state it as I did. Your comment, deserves no such response. It was childish. d2ret, I agree with your statements. I have no proof of it, but both Uptons seem to get by on talent and haven't reached the levels that most expected for bothalone. IMO, superstar players have an extra gear. A desire to be the best. To want to separate themselves from everyone else. I get a feeling of acceptance from both. They're happy being what they are. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but just a guess. Ask yourself, why would the D-backs want to rid themselves of a 25 year old player with seemingly unlimited potential? It's not because they're a bad organization. There must be something that they feel they are not getting that they expected to get. |
| 69. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 12:30:12 MarinerCoug, I would not be up for paying Upton another $40 Million for two extra years, when he's not proven himself to be a superstar. I don't like the idea of paying for something he hasn't yet achieved. |
| 70. By: Ianyo on 01-11-2013 12:32:20 Edman, the Mariners have been to the playoffs 4 out of their 36 years. Sure, they had some good runs but four playoff appearances is ugly. |
| 71. By: MarinerCoug on 01-11-2013 12:34:07 Edman, giving him 40 extra mil for two years would make him a 5/77 player, which, like it or not, the baseball market says is what he has earned to this point in his career and is realistically capable of producing in that time. |
| 72. By: Panhead55 on 01-11-2013 12:55:31 Edman, you've commented about the Upton brothers not having that extra gear of a superstar. The comment reminded me of a pretty good player, who got by on talent, and was happy just being who he was. Junior Griffey could have worked harder, but still had a pretty nice HOF career. This is not to say that J Upton is as talented as Griffey was, but in the end I think I think Upton will have a very fine career. |
| 73. By: rjfrik on 01-11-2013 13:19:59 Ummm. Panhead, you cannot compare Jr. to Upton in any aspect. I have not witnessed how Upton prepares himself, how he practices or any of that. But I have witnessed Jr. From the time he was in A ball and I was a kid, I would go watch Jr two hours before game time and Jr. was all business. The kid pushed himself and that was when he was 18. Griffey had the extra gear to be great, to make himself great. He had that IT, that extra spark. He's one of the top 25 greatest players to ever play for a reason. Jr was a superstar and it wasn't just from talent alone. |
| 74. By: sexymarinersfan on 01-11-2013 13:34:37 Agreed rjfrik! And we all saw that extra gear on full display in '95 when Jr. was rounding the bases in the Kingdome. The fastest I've ever seen him run!! |
| 75. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 13:40:02 What rjfrik said. Griffey worked hard to be a superstar. He had an ability to make the game look easy, but he didn't get there without hard work. I have never heard anyone complain that Griffey didn't work hard. When the Uptons reach the superstar platform, then you can make comparisons to Griffey. Right now, the best either can do is be a very good player. Not the same thing. |
| 76. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 13:43:25 lanyo, that's still not a justification to say they have no history of winning, when clearly they have. Do they have history of winning as a franchise? No, but that wasn't the statement. |
| 77. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 13:57:59 Edman, the last time the Mariners went to the playoffs was 10 years ago, Upton was 14-15 years old that season, probably occupied with girls and playing baseball, which I assume because he stated in an interview a few years ago, "(he doesn't) follow much baseball, (he) just (likes) to play it." For that, amongst other reason, IN HIS MIND, The Mariners are Losers, playoff appearances be damned. Name the 8 teams that went to the 2005 playoffs without looking it up... Can't, can you? If you say you can, I'll call you a liar without hesitation. People remember winners, not teams that never even won an AL Pennant. Based on the overall sentiment of the site, with how worried we all are about the offense and how many posters to this blog say they are going to stop ordering tickets, especially back when the new prices came out a couple months ago, and how many felt like the rebuild was taking too long to keep waiting. If the Mariners fans, like the ones who frequent this site, who are supposed to be more knowledgable than the casual band-wagoner, don't feel we are going in the right direction and/or we are taking to long to get there. What do you think the player feels like? We know our offense sucks and it's always easier to evaluate talent when you play against it than when you watch it. So you don't think Justin Upton knows just how good we are talent wise or in this case, aren't? As for playing with his brother: They have implied many times that they would like to play together. It was also a major point in a story that came out in Baseball Weekly. I happened to be in the airport and needed a baseball fix, so I picked up the edition that was available the 1st week of October 2011 when the playoffs were just starting. The story was about both brothers being in the playoffs and how they wanted to play together, but would settle for playing against each other in the World Series. The story alluded to the parents paying their own travel to go see their sons play live and that it was very difficult to choose which brother to go watch play and having to pay all the airfares, plus scheduling themselves to be on two sides of the country at the same time. Imagine Atlanta and Seattle, it doesn't get much further than that. If the Upton brothers were paying the tickets for the parents, money wouldn't be an issue, so the money being an issue indicates that the parents, not the sons, are paying. Additionally, if they were raised in a home where the parents pay to travel around the country to watch them play when they are both worth tens of millions of dollars, it tells me and anyone else who is watching that they have plenty of character in that family and were raised with good values. If the parents pay their way, they probably made the Upton brothers pay their way for the things they wanted, that's how families work. That's how my family worked and i know my dad wouldn't take a free ticket, he'd pay his way to come see me play, even if I was a millionaire. So your comments are duly assumptive in nature and wrong about the maturity and personality of the Upton brothers. What's more, my ideas didn't come from incongruent concepts and irrational logic that makes Bill Kreuger's "keys to the game" look intelligent and insightful. Stop talking out both sides of your mouth. You do ZERO research, you criticize without offering anything new to the conversation, and what's more you compensate for low self-esteem with fake bravado. It's this simple. If I don't like an idea, that's my right, everyone is entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled to share it, hense moderators and moderation. If I tell you I don't like an idea, it is not an option, it is a RESPONSIBILITY to defend my position with facts... Which I DO and YOU DON'T. Which is why you have problems on this blog. Check the trade blog if you want proof. I spent an hour defending my position and even retracted one of my statements when my research proved something I said to be inaccurate. That in my nearest estimations would be the way a person conducts himself, when he is of level mind and "knows how to play in the sandbox with others," as another poster put so eloquently. If you say "I don't think", "I don't like", or "It is wrong", your very next statement or sentence NEEDS TO BE WHY, if it isn't, don't post. Not because I say so, but because it's not fair to the people who are having a fair and balanced discussion and defend their opinions and positions. Your form comment goes as follows "You are wrong..." Then you drone on and on with your praddlings about life and subjective opinions about all things Edman, followed by complaining about climate, mental strain involved with using your brain, and all other things eronious and unrelated, then your childish retort used as an online signature. What you are really saying is: "you're stupid, you don't know anything, you do research because you don't have the biggest brain in the world, I can't be bothered researching because it takes time, I can't propose a trade because I might be wrong and my fragile self-esteem could crumble up and blow away in the wind if I tried, then you finish your statements with your newest and most clever form of "hahaha, I told you so" OR "you're dumb because my mom says so." Grow a pair and take a chance at being wrong, nobody said you need to have all the answers, just stop acting like you do and stop talking crap to people that put in the time to make this site better with their research and thoughtful comments. But most importantly stop feeling you have to respond to every comment on here like we are paying for your opinion. I'm pretty sure everyone here is paying for Jason's opinion and the guys he chooses to write for ProspectInsider above the "jump", as we say in the business world, remember whose name is on the door, especially when it ain't yours. |
| 78. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 14:16:32 76, Edman you want a strawman argument, here's one for you. The Astros won 55 times in 2012, they have a history of winning more than 33% of the time as recent as this last season. Oh you meant winning a championship? We haven't done that, not a WS, not an AL Pennant. Oh, so when you mean we are a winning team, we should include teams that never actually won a championship, but who simply got to play extra games each year. Because every kids dreams of growing up to someday lose playoff games. Wait, you mean, winning a wild care series is a sign of success, 10 and possibly 11 seasons ago. So you mean he shouldn't want to play for the Astros, which is why he didn't block them. Because he decided that his best chance at winning a championship was to play with the Astros, since they went to the World Series, 3 years AFTER our last playoff appearance. What??? He shouldn't consider the Astros because they don't have Bagwell, Biggio, or Berkman anymore? Right, good point, because the Mariners still have Edgar, Olerud, Boone, Cameron, Bell, Guillen, Buhner, Henderson, Javier, McLemore, Garcia, Moyer, Sele, Halama, Abbott, Sasaki, Rhodes, Nelson? Whooaaaaa.... WHOA!! You are saying all those guys are retired too, NO WAY!! So the Mariners in 2002 and the Mariners in 2013 have a stadium, bad owners, and a good GM in common, and that's it? Weird, so what you are saying is that your whole argument boils down to the Mariners still wear Mariners uniforms, just like they did over a decade ago, so that makes them winners like how the Mariners over 10 years ago, were winners?? That's your best arguments? Stop throwing the changeup or it's just an easier to hit fastball. You have to challenge me with something more than that. I know, you weren't talkin to me, just about me and my comment. So that means I don't have the right to comment? I've heard that Edmanism too. Try something original. |
| 79. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 14:30:14 Edman, we all love Griffey, but he didn't work hard, it's why he gained weight, why he dropped so fast from being a star. Just like Pujols is starting to do now. It takes lots of work to be good in your 30s. Talent carried Griffey much further than most, plus he had a simply beautiful swing, but he was never a hard worker. He just loved the game. He ate too much junk food, read the archives from Shannon Drayer where she talked about his diet when he got to Seattle at 38-39 years old. He had to stop drinking sodas and eating candy. He never took it too seriously because he was gifted. I have no doubt in my mind that if he would have put in the work in the gym, he'd still be playing today if he wanted to. But he wasn't Edgar. Griffey is really just a big kid and liked to be on the field and sure he spent hours playing the game. However, in the majors it's about conditioning, diet, and discipline. All things he lacked in spades. I don't know about Upton, but it might be true. However, look how far Griffey got on talent and Upton is a 1-1 draft pick with just as much helium in his star. Plus we aren't buying his 30s, we're riding his talent through the 20s, and it should be viewed in that light. Even an extension that finishes in the early 30s will net us 30-50+ WAR. So it's not like we're signing Smoak and all his question marks. If you want to talk about character, talk about Walker folding like a deck of cards when he found out his mom was sick. While Smoak was still playing his best ball as a professional. Oh, you don't see the similarity between your comments about Upton and my comments about Walker and Smoak? Well, I think it's remarkable Walker even pitched instead of saying he was headed home to be with his mom. But even as clearly as we know the problems he was going through, even more than Justin has gone through, we don't know how these young men were dealing with these difficulties. Temper your "facts" and start refering to them as opinions. And your opinions cannot trump another's opinion, it can only leave doubt where there is doubt to be seen. |
| 80. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 14:33:30 69, the word you are looking for is "consistent" as he already is a "superstar", the fact that he finished with a 6+ WAR and was in the Top 5 of the MVP voting makes him a superstar. Maybe you meant he's too much of an enigma as a baseball player to feel comfortable giving that kind of money to, above and beyond his current deal? See, it's not fun having someone pick apart your statements, is it? IS IT?? Okay, now stop doing it to others. |
| 81. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 14:35:58 WSChamps2014, defend what you wrote: 2) Seattle has no history of winning and I think they have to make their team much better on paper before he'll consider them for real. I proved that they did have winning history. You counter that by saying that you meant within Upton's lifetime. You're free to believe what you believe. Seattle certainly doesn't have a history of continued success, but that's not what you wrote. You made it sound like the Mariners have never been good, which is not true. The M's may not have won the World Series in 2001, but they did win 116 games, which only one other club in MLB history has. Think of me what you want, but I didn't write an essay on what you think, now did I? |
| 82. By: Panhead55 on 01-11-2013 14:37:53 73,74, 75 First of all I did not compare the talent level of Upton to Griffey. Please reread my post if you think I did. Griffey was one of the most talented players of all time. He was loved because he played the game extremely well, and played the game for the sheer joy of playing. That does not mean he worked hard. He was often criticized for his off season regimen. Upon his trade to Cincinnati he began to succumb to injuries and many blamed his lack of training. Griffey got by on sheer talent, but that still led to a great career. While he had a great career, and one with out PED suspicion, it could have been even better. Perhaps for Griffey the game came too easy. |
| 83. By: whereswoody on 01-11-2013 14:47:01 In an ideal world if Ackley could move to the outfield, I would certainly be fine with the M's offering that same deal to the Yankees for Cano, with a guarantee Cano will sign an extension. Extremely unlikely but a guy like Cano is a player that I would give up names like Walker and Franklin for, not Upton |
| 84. By: whereswoody on 01-11-2013 14:48:31 @WS, C'mon, you cant expect anyone to read your novel of a post |
| 85. By: Panhead55 on 01-11-2013 14:50:54 You should, his posts are worth reading. |
| 86. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 14:53:37 fewer words, more content. |
| 87. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 15:01:49 WS, Justin Upton is not the same type of player as either Griffey or Arod. Not even close. I know you want to believe that, but it's not true. The Uptons had the presumption of greatness before they were drafted. And those labels still apply today. But neither will come close to the talent of Ken Griffey Jr. |
| 88. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 15:09:44 Edman, more reading, less talking. If you really read my comments, you wouldn't be asking me to answer what I already did. READ, seriously, all the answers you are looking for are there. If you don't understand, that's not my fault. Keep reading until you do understand. I literally laid it all out in lay terms for you. I don't think I could be any more transparent. READ IT. Just because your mouth is moving, doesn't mean you are talking. Just because your making sounds into words, doesn't mean it's intelligent. Just because you feel you're right, doesn't mean you are. |
| 89. By: whereswoody on 01-11-2013 15:09:52 alright, I will. Let me make some coffee first |
| 90. By: Panhead55 on 01-11-2013 15:11:21 lol |
| 91. By: Galway on 01-11-2013 15:14:19 Griffey worked hard at portraying he did not work hard and was just talent but he worked his butt off in reality and came back from a surgery that I don't believe anyone has. He declined because of Kingdome rug, screws in his wrist, a hamstring that had so much scarring it had to be detached to clean up and screwed back onto his leg, plus he just got old. Look at pre roid era decline patterns not terribly different than Griffeys. Upton is very talented but including him in conversation as Griffey isn't fair to either. Stanton yes, Upton no, and that's a knock on Upton he is one of the better young talents in the game but thats different than a generational talent. |
| 92. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 15:16:29 All those words to say neener, neener neener? |
| 93. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 15:20:52 I fully agree, Galway. I think some are so infactuated with Upton, that they feel a need to justify their manlove. |
| 94. By: whereswoody on 01-11-2013 15:21:25 has anyone explored the possibility that Z offered this trade knowing that Upton would decline it. It may have been to show Felix that they are actively trying to build a short term playoff team, so our chances to resign him could be better. |
| 95. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 15:21:45 <--- sends whereswoody a triple-shot.....LOL |
| 96. By: whereswoody on 01-11-2013 15:27:56 @74, seriously, Im convinced he ran a 4.2 around those bases |
| 97. By: Galway on 01-11-2013 15:30:53 I would not say manlove, just some value potential higher, that's fair. It is interesting when our young 23 - 25 year old players struggle we need to be patient but others do head case. Upton does have great potential but give him a fair comparison. In Griffeys case media and Griffey himself when younger boasted not working but reality is trainers actually said he did everything without question. Late Ryan Freel, Casey, and Dunn commented on his offseason work ethic in FL while w the Reds. So sometimes labels early in a career stick but necessarily true. Upton is not a Griffey but he may not be a head case either. Beat reporters in AZ have actually had positive things to say. I personally don't know. Now Walker ouch steep for anyone not a Griffey talent such as Stanton. |
| 98. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 15:53:08 94, I think it's very likely that it could be for that AND maybe they want to put a value on Upton to show the Marlins about what they would be getting next year if Stanton doesn't perform at the same level. Upton only has 1 less year of control than Stanton and Stanton is sure to get almost as much in arbitration if not more than what Upton will be paid. Maybe Jack is planning to take the same offer to the Marlins and says, we'll give you the same package as we offered for Upton, plus we'll take on Nolasco's ugly contract, and then you tell us what we need to add to cover the extra year of control, the shipping, and the handling, as we all know it'll have to be some form of overpay. Walker, Franklin, Pryor, Furbush, got us Upton (minus the blocking of the trade), so we take Upton's value (15 WAR = $82.5M) and subtract it from Stanton's value (28 WAR = $154M), which is $71.5M minus $6M of Nolasco's $11.5M, meaning we only need to compensate for $65.5M. That's only 3 good prospects or 2 young players. We can also substitute Wilhelmsen for Pryor to add value to the deal (about $20M in that case). But it atleast gives subjectivity to a future Stanton trade as nobody like him has even been traded before. While we all agree Upton is not Stanton and those calculations have been taken into consideration. One can't dismiss the similarities entirely. |
| 99. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 15:55:44 A fair comparison might be JD Drew, who pre-draft was projected to be a superstar. While he had some very good seasons, he never did achieve his superstar label. IMO, he was content with being the player he was. He didn't necessarily want to be a superstar. |
| 100. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 16:00:20 whereswoody, I have to agree. Watching Griffey will his way to homeplate was one of the greatest Mariner moments of all time. I will never forget it, or the smile on his face, knowing that he put the Mariners on the map. |
| 101. By: Panhead55 on 01-11-2013 16:12:04 Nothing wrong with J D Drew. In 14 years he had an OPS of .873 and totaled 42.2 WAR or an average of 3 WAR per season. The Ms would love an OFer like that. |
| 102. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 16:15:20 Yes, but he was never considered a superstar. |
| 103. By: DUWORKSON on 01-11-2013 16:16:13 Tough situation for JZ and the organization. But the organization gotta move on and work on option B. My two cents...after finding out what type of package it took to get Upton my jaw dropped. Don't get me wrong having Upton would of been great and the summer would of been fun too. But IMO the organization is one year away from such a move i.e. Trading for Upton. A smaller move but effective is to trade for St. Louis young outfielder Oscar Tavares for Danny Hutlzen. Groom the young Tavares for 2014 debut in RF. And then sign Jacob Ellsbury as a FA |
| 104. By: Edman on 01-11-2013 16:27:02 I think we have to sort out Ackley, Montero and Smoak this coming year. Seattle can clearly add an outfielder and not affect the future. Jack has a big job to do, but it's probably not going to get done in any spectacular fashion, unless Eithier is actually in play, which I doubt, since Swisher ended up in Cleveland. |
| 105. By: rjfrik on 01-11-2013 16:41:37 You guys can't really be basing your evaluation of work ethic on Griffey when he was a 38 year old man on his way out. Not many people who are 20 years into their jobs, ready to retire are putting in a hellacious work ethic. They are trying to enjoy their lives and ride out their career comfortably. I witnessed first hand when Griffey played for the Bellingham Mariners what his work ethic was like. He stayed longer in the cage then anyone, he sprinted through every drill, he ran faster, harder and was paid attention to what was being instructed far more then any player on his team. You could tell he was going to be a star, not by just talent, but because he wanted it more. He showed it to you as an 18 year old kid. I've never seen anything like it, except maybe Mike Trout. Griffey became a star because he combined his talent with his work ethic. Sure maybe once he was in his 30's he relaxed a bit, but he did all the work in the world for his first 10 years in the league to become the best and he did just that. Justin Upton, to my knowledge, hasn't put in that type of work. If he did, I would think (this is speculation) based on his talent he would be one of the top 5 players in the league. In Griffey's age 24 season, he belted 40 HR's while batting .323 on his way to getting 2nd in the MVP voting, being voted into his 5th straight All Star game, his 5th straight Gold Glove, his 3rd Silver Slugger. He was a STAR because of the hard work and talent. Upton's age 24 season he batted .280 while hitting 17 HR's. He did not make an All Star game, no Gold Glove, no Silver Slugger and wasn't even a thought in the MVP voting. Both players came into the league at their age 19 seasons. |
| 106. By: ripperlv on 01-11-2013 16:50:22 Upton is a 5 tool player with upside, an all star, a proven corner outfielder and only 25 years old. Look around, there's not to many players with that resume. It may have been an overpay, but it would have been worth it. Guys like that are valuable and prospects are still prospects. Remember Tony Butler and Kam Mickolio? 2 of the prospects in the Bedard trade. I would have endorsed the trade. Nice try JZ. |
| 107. By: 5-Tool Poster on 01-11-2013 17:23:12 Surprise, surprise. Another good player doesn't want to come to one of the worst teams in baseball over the last decade and a half. Why should we be surprised? Why do you think we don't get any good FA? We really shit the bed trading Adam Jones, lol. |
| 108. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-11-2013 17:58:31 107, decade, not decade and a half... The half you are talking about is the richest part of the history of our team in almost 40 years of existence. That other half would have been 1999-2003. 1999 79-83 2000 91-71 2001 116-46 2002 93-69 2003 93-69 That's good for 472-338, which is a .583 winning percentage. I agree with the rest of your sentiment, but definitely it was 2004 and beyond where the team started to fall off significantly. |
| 109. By: Jimfra on 01-11-2013 19:12:20 The second half of 2012 we played .500 baseball. The young players on the team are maturing. We have made some improvements on the offense and we have a reasonable opportunity to see improvement in some of our young hitters. It makes no sense to act out of desperation for another hitter. IMHO we should live with the hitting we have and look for pitching. We have a much better chance of landing a free agent pitcher. We could add to this by trading from our strength (pitching and MI) for high quality outfield prospects. With patience the approach Z has taken will payoff. |
| 110. By: docsmith on 01-12-2013 04:53:27 The further away from this busted trade the less I like it. Thank you Mr. Upton. I can only guess why you would not like to spend your summers in the excellent city of Seattle, but I am grateful for your choice. |
| 111. By: Paul Martin on 01-12-2013 09:12:07 WHERE WE GO FROM HERE + RANDOM THOUGHTS: 1. I don't want Bourn. Maybe it's the "Figgins hangover" but he is on the wrong side of 30 for a speed guy. Also don't like losing the draft pick AND the slot dollars that go with the pick. Last year we signed Zunino under slot and used that extra money to go over slot in other rounds. 2. Don't like Morse. Sounds like the Yankees and Red Sox are interested in him and he may cost more than you Morse fans think. Plus, he doesn't really have a position on this team with 1B and DH real crowded. To top it off, he is a one year rental player, and we already have a rental in Morales. 3. Is Napoli worth a second look? Still not signed by Boston, and I read Boston is now trying to sign him for one year or even look at Morse. We need a 3rd catcher, and I hear we would prefer a defensive catcher, but who is out there? Olivo or Torrealba are terrible and failed here already. If we signed Napoli, and traded Morales to a contender at the trade deadline (a la Cliff Lee) then Napoli could move over to 1st base. Napoli doesn't seem to have anyone but Boston interested in him, and we know Jack was looking at him earlier. 4. We need TWO more starting pitchers, and right now ALL 5 are right handed. I would feel much better going into the offseason not counting on Beaven or Noesi. Who do we target? I am OK with trying Millwood again, but I think we got a bit lucky with his performance last year and he probably takes a step back. 2nd target might be one of the following: Ted Lilly or Chris Capuano from the Dodgers or Joe Sanders via free agency. Another thought is Francisco Liriano. His non throwing arm got hurt and the Pirates are not signing him to the 2 year deal. Why not swoop in and get him, if his injury is not too serious? 5. Now that other teams saw the huge overpay Jack offered Arizona, I would imagine teams interested in Walker et al will be calling. Jack probably has something in the works no one has ever thought of. Should be interesting. 6. Wow, I wish Melky Cabrera had not signed so EARLY in the offseason. 2 years and 16 million sure looks like a bargain given the cost to trade or sign free agents. I would have loved to give him 3 years 24 million now! 7. Any ideas on the free agent left over bargain bin? |
| 112. By: StandinPat on 01-12-2013 11:15:08 I for one am glad the trade didn't go through. That would have been a high price to pay for a player that has yet to live up to his 'Star' potential. @111 1) I understand many of the reservations with Bourn, but he has been more valuable than Upton over the past four years. Something to think about, Money should be fairly close, so Upton for Walker, Franklin, Furbush and Pryor or Bourn for the 12th pick? 2) Agreed your 1B/DH crowd is already crowded and he doesn't help you in 2014 when you have a more realistic shot at contending. 3) No thanks on Napoli. Same 1B/DH problem as before, major health question marks and not really a catcher anymore. Torrealba actually wouldn't be an awful pick up, I'd prefer Shoppach. Remember, your third catching isn't going to be seeing a ton of playing time. 4) Agree two pitchers would be great, but having Beaven/Hultzen/Paxton battle out for the last spot wouldn't be the end of the world. As far as trade targets Capuano and Porcello would work, and on the FA side Marcum or Lowe would work as would Sanchez, Young, Pavano, Jurrjens and Braden would all be interesting as 5th man competition. 6) We still don't know he would want to come here. 7) I mentioned Shoppach before, Ryan Raburn, Ryan Sweeney, Nyjer Morgan and Luke Scott could all make some sense. |
| 113. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-12-2013 11:39:38 111, interesting questions, I couldn't help myself, I decided if I was going to do the work/research to answer them for myself, I'd share what I found since it doesn't cost me anything. 1. I'm with you on Bourn, maybe it's irrational, but I don't like Bourn because of what happened with Figgins. Yes, I read the Jeff Sullivan post at lookoutlanding that was supposed to convince us Bourn isn't Figgins. It worked, but I still didn't want him. 2. I like Morse only because he has opposite-field power, all of his homeruns are the other-way. Now my issue with Morse is two-fold, I don't like his patience, and I don't like that he can only field at one position, DH. 3. If it's the hip, then definitely it's not worth a look unless you can get him cheap for a maximum of 2 years as he'd be a DH/1B type. If it's not a hip then we could look at him as a part-time catcher. Depending on what trades we can make to clear a roster space it could be an upgrade. I have been thinking we should sell-high on Jaso now, while keeping Montero to increase his value for a later trade by starting him at catcher until Zunino is called up. It potentially would make other teams, that are on the fence about his true defensive position, see him as a real catching option. 4. I like the Francisco Liriano idea a lot, I was surprised to see what he accepted and would gladly give him the same deal. Especially when you consider his FIP and xFIP from last year were both better than his results. I read an article on Fangraphs about Gio Gonzalez and they said the only thing different between the guy who was a #3 in Oakland and a #1B (Strasburg being #1A) in Washington was that they changed his frequency of fastballs from 61-64% to 70-71% approx. and made him throw his breaking ball less, which I think might fix Liriano's wildness and health issues at the same time. I think if we got his fastball frequency between 65-70% instead of 50-53%, he'd be a true #2 for us. I'd even give him $28-32M over 4 years to find out, since he'll only be 29-32 years old through the deal and worse case he'll be a #4 for us, which isn't terrible. As for Capuano, I say let's throw them Casper Wells to be insurance for Crawford not being ready by opening day, he could also platoon with Ethier in RF and be the 4th OF. We let them choose one of Carlos Triunfel or Francisco Martinez and we get Corey Seager as a player to be named later. Which became possible around the 1st of January. Capuano would have about $2-5M in excess value on his current deal, and if you include his option, the excess value might be $5-8M total. Casper has an excess value of $18M+, if you are bearish on him. If you are bullish, he has a value of about $25M+. That means there's about $15M extra in value to cover by the Dodgers and Corey Seager is worth about $25M. We could let them have both Triunfel and Martinez, if it's necessary. But it would add depth to the system and give us a real 3B prospect outside of Kivlehan. It also might make signing Kyle to a long-term extension, far more likely. 5. I think at this point with statements made about staying in-house and building the farm system, we could approach the Brewers about a deal and at the very least if nothing happens with Braun, the fact that we're talking to the Brewers could make the Marlins more interested in making a deal. Supposedly Miami never talked to San Diego and they just wanted to leverage more prospects out of Jack before doing a deal for Stanton, maybe there's more gamesmanship going on than we think. As a side note, if Miami holds on to Stanton, one of three things will happen: His value will go down, which means substantially less value in the trade package, especially with his "free year" no longer in play. His value will stay the same, but he'll burn about 7 WAR x $5.5M or $38.5M in trade value. That's like Taijuan Walker and Nick Franklin in terms of prosects. Or he'll go up in value by maybe 2 WAR from 7-9 WAR in trade value, but again, he'll burn 7 WAR worth of trade value for his 2013 season. So the player getting better by 2 WAR x 3 years is an increase of 6 WAR in trade value, but he loses all of 2013 which is a 7 WAR loss, so it's a net -1 WAR. Add in the clubhouse problems, the way he'll make all his teammates hate the organization, the fact that fans who'll come to see him hit homeruns are the same ones that are pissed about the team being torn apart, so it won't save their attendance, and mosts importantly, the lack of talent around him is more likely to decrease his value than increase it. All of this points to a deal getting done by Spring Training, even if on the surface it doesn't seem likely. No matter how he performs, he won't increase his trade value from where it stands right now. 6. Absolutely. I'd did my numbers before the free agent season began and was thinking $31.5M/3yrs. with a $1.5M option on a 4th year at $10.5M or essentially, he'd be paid a minimum of $11M per year for the first 3 seasons. I felt my deal was undervaluing him. The Blue Jays got a steal. 7. I like Manny Parra (30) as a LH reliever, especially if Zduriencik is thinking about dumping Furbush while his value is at it's highest. If he's wanting to make deals from the bullpen, he also might be able to sign guys like Mark Lowe (30), Joey Devine (29). All are hard throwers, which means a greater chance of successfully bouncing back. The last one is just an idea if we trade some OFs, but maybe we can get Nyjer Morgan to be a 4th OF and defensive replacement. Especially if Jack was listening when I said we should trade Gutierrez for Lincecum and about $10M of his salary being covered. |
| 114. By: maqman on 01-12-2013 11:48:26 There are still quite a few free agent pitchers available, including Marcum, Moyer, Millwood and Oswalt. I like the possibility of Chris Young. WSChamp I get you think Edman is full of crap, hopefully you will stick to your basic opinion in the future and not waste 15 minutes of my time reading your thesis. I'm damn near 76 and those minutes are valuable to me. Edman you know I value your opinion but you are getting a tad combative old man. I know you know the game, show it off more. |
| 115. By: Edman on 01-12-2013 13:26:29 Some wish to be authors, not chatters. I do believe Jason had/has a rule about keeping comments brief. He has authors to write the big stuff. |
| 116. By: bp42810 on 01-12-2013 13:28:02 113. You severely undervalue Capuano and C. Seager with that proposal. Both are worth more individually than a 4th OF and 2 C level prospects. Most Dodger fans see C. Seager as comparable to Nick Franklin. Sickels rated him a B+ and the #2 prospect in their system. He also rated Franklin a B+. You wouldn't trade Franklin alone for a Casper Wells 4th OF and fodder. No way that would be considered by the Dodgers. Capuano also has more value. He had nearly 200 IP last year with similar numbers to Iwakuma although more of a Flyball pitcher and a half a run higher ERA. |
| 117. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-12-2013 14:07:21 114, you chose to read it, nobody made you. The content is there if you wish to go over it. If there's a television show or a board game you wish to play, feel free to do that instead. Nobody is keeping you tied to the computer and as far as what I've seen, there's not much new to read in the Mariners world right now. Obviously all your years haven't taught you to stay out of other peoples' battles. Edman dug his own hole with me and I think I made my point loud and clear. Read his responses to EVERY post I make, whether short or long and tell me it's not justified? 115, and some would rather be critical and synical instead of contribute and offer optimism. I believe Jason also has rules about trolling, staying on topic, and personal attacks. Far be it from you to read and adhere to the rules that suit you. 116, maybe, but Casper Wells was worth 1.2 in 2012 over 1/2 a season (316 ABs). That means he's a 2.5 WAR player if he gets 600 ABs, and that's not even considering the true effect Safeco has made to his statistics as it had a park factor of 73 this year and wRC+ a component of WAR had Safeco park factor calculated to around 90-95. This year alone he has $12M of excess value. He'll get paid $15M for his arbitration years (his peak seasons mind you 29-31), which is another $22.5M in value. So that's almost $35M in excess value. Maybe you're under-selling Wells. Just because he'd be a 4th OF for the Dodgers doesn't mean he's not our starting RF if the season started today. As Dave Cameron stated, Wells is basically a younger version of Cody Ross. Seager as a B+ is worth about $20-$25M in trade value, just like Franklin. Prospects don't matter to the Dodgers like they do to the Mariners, because they can buy what they want. Being the 2nd best prospect in the Dodgers system doesn't mean much since their system is one of the worst 10 systems in baseball if not bottom 5. Sickel's grades are very inconsistent as he stated the Mariners grades were lower and nobody got a B grade because of High Desert, whereas the Astros single-A players were given Bs while playing in a similar environment. I generally like Sickle's ratings, but he gave us 10 B- or higher grades, even Pryor a MLB setup man got a C+, while lesser quality pitchers not even in AAA yet, got Bs. We should have had 18-20 Bs and we should have had about 10-15 Cs. Check two years ago, check a year ago, this is our worst rankings, while having our best quantity and quality of prospects, ever. If we had an All-Star at every position practically and we needed to possibly fill LF for a month or two and needed a long-term th OF, we'd probably trade Romero or Miller for Seager, which is a better comp. Remember that Seager is still a long ways away from the majors, probably 2 years minimum, and 3 years before he sticks. It would essentially be Triunfel/Martinez for Capuano and Wells for C. Seager. But it allows for them to fill the need most pressing, which is why I think they are trying to dump Capuano. If they would rather get Catricala and Triunfel with Wells, that's fine too. I think it would be about even, just Cat has more power and is closer. |
| 118. By: Rudolf on 01-12-2013 14:51:59 WSChamps2014, I chose not to read it but I had to scroll past it. You pop up on this website every year when you enter your manic phase, and your wild ideas hijack these threads and turn them nutty. in fact, I've never read so many nutty posts on this website as I have in the last two weeks. I have to sift through seemingly limitless bullcrap to find interesting ideas. It's like mlbtraderumors annexed prospectinsider and invited faketeams to rent a room. I can't read these comments sections anymore. I want to, but it is a complete waste of my time. enjoy the comment section, newbies. You win. |
| 119. By: StandinPat on 01-12-2013 15:11:07 "you chose to read it, nobody made you" But people might have given you the benefit of the doubt that reading it wouldn't have been a complete waste of time. We now all know better. |
| 120. By: rjfrik on 01-12-2013 15:31:57 #113. You do know that Corey Seager is arguably the Dodgers best prospect and they see him as damn near untouchable. There is no way in hell they give him up for Triunfel or Martinez. You would have to send them Paxton or Franklin to get Seager, that's how good the kid is and how much they value him. If you want Cap, send them Wells and Triunfel and they say okay. Done deal. We aren't getting Seager. Rudolf, I hear you man. We all should try to keep the comments that are novels and about trades or acquiring players to the trade thread that Jason provided. This thread should be about Upton. Time for a new thread. |
| 121. By: d2ret on 01-12-2013 18:33:04 Maybe its just me, but has there been a ton of whining on here lately. Its not that serious... its a baseball blog. WSChamps I think your posts, although long, contain some of the most anylitical and in depth content. Furthermore I think some of the trade proposals youve been puting up are pretty on the spot for the types of deals we should be looking for. I do agree that Seager is thought of more highly, but I was going to reccomend adding Catricala or other pieces too. Whats with all the attacks?? I dont understand what people are trying to accomplish wish those. |
| 122. By: d2ret on 01-12-2013 18:41:37 Btw, very nice anaylisis on the Gio Gonzalez trasition / Liriano comparision. If his health checks out, he is a left handed starter which could end up being a nice pickup with upside and relatively low risk. I loved Seager in last years draft. Very nice, level swing for such a big guy. |
| 123. By: Juan Valdez on 01-12-2013 21:50:19 This from whereswoody: "In an ideal world if Ackley could move to the outfield, I would certainly be fine with the M's offering that same deal to the Yankees for Cano, with a guarantee Cano will sign an extension. Extremely unlikely but a guy like Cano is a player that I would give up names like Walker and Franklin for, not Upton." I agree unlikely, but I like the idea. The Yankees are in a unique situation (for the Yankees) at the moment. They have a number of big money contracts for the next few years, while at the same time they need to bring their payroll under control. Cano (or his agent Scott Boras) has made it clear they aren't giving the Yankees a hometown discount. It's something to think about. I would ONLY do it if Cano signed an extension, which I doubt he'd do, especially with Boras as his agent. But this TYPE of thing is at least worth thinking about. |
| 124. By: on 01-12-2013 21:51:24 CLARITY ON APPRORIATE CRITICISMS... StandingPat, Rudolf, Edman, how old are you? I know Maqman is 76. He refers to Edman as old man and I think I saw him last year as 59 or something? You four tend to be my biggest critics and are the most outspoken and negative posters on here. From your comments and your lack of desire to read advanced statistical information, how you all talk about "not having time" for reading and researching this, that or aother thing, I'm going to guess you are all over 40 years old. People tend to become more critical of others, negative in general, and very concerned with time as they get older. Older people tend to also view advanced statistics as a form of magic or sorcery. They aren't. I'm sorry you all don't appreciate my comments, but there are people that seem to like them. I don't appreciate all of the comments I read on here from you four and more importantly, I don't feel it's my right or duty to tell you all when I don't like something you write, but I guess that's what makes us different. For the record though, there have been comments you all have made that have made me stop following a thread even when I was enjoying the baseball related topics being discussed. So thank you all for that. You may criticize my posts, but remember that I have stayed on topic, responding to other posters when they look for interaction from the community in terms of ideas or answers to questions, and have only been antagonistic when defending myself. Please remember also, that I have not been adversarial or curse towards anyone with my comments, that wasn't first aggressive towards me. As for you that decided you don't like me or my writing because I am long-winded or detailed in my analysis... Some will feel they get a lot from my posts, others will feel they are a waste of time. I know I get lots of good ideas and opinions from other posts I read, while other people don't offer as much to the conversation, but I just ignore the posters I don't like. That's what adults do. They don't act like this site is just for them, they realize it's for all of us that enjoy Jason's work, the Seattle Mariners. or prospect/baseball analysis. Not to call anyone out, but RotoEnquire and I couldn't appear to be more different in terms of thought process as I have rarely, if ever, agreed with one of his posts. I still find his posts get me thinking in a new way, which opens up new avenues I wouldn't otherwise explore, he also has a right to post here and while I may not agree with him normally, I also don't feel it's my right to tell him how wrong he is when we do differ in opinion. Some of you more derrogatory posters could benefit from learning to do that as well in the future. As a side note, I want to thank RotoEnquire for his contributions here, even if I don't agree with him always. When people attack me and other posters they are saying what they want is more important than what everyone else wants. As an example, if even one other person enjoys my posts, shouldn't they be able to read them here without another censoring the site and taking away their access to a blogger they enjoy reading? Imagine how the world would be if everyone censored the parts of life that they don't like and nobody tollerated anyone else's preferences? Name one thing that all the posters here can agree on, just one thing besides liking the Mariners, and for that matter I bet there's a rouge Rangers or Angels fan here, so probably the Mariners variable isn't even viable. If you can't find one thing we all share common ground on then why don't we just ask Jason to shut the site down, so nobody has to be inconvenienced. Or is the problem that people only want tollerance shown towards them, without having to express the same tollerance they seek from others. The criticisms I take are for length and content, whereas someone like Edman gets criticized for being negative and rude, do you see the difference? One is a format isssue, while the other is a personality issue. When someone is attacking someone for format, it means you probably should keep it to yourself unless you want to start censoring everyone. If someone attacks another unjustly and without cause, ala Edman, then he deserves other posters to speak up. I believe most people here do a good job of moderating each other. Where we get lead astray is when we forget that moderating is not about what we want as an individual, but rather about what should we avoid being subjected to as a group. A long post that is not rude or obscene, may not be recommendable, but it shouldn't be censored. A short post with an attack is no less disruptive to the website than a long post filled with analysis and research. Each to their own, but just make sure you aren't imposing your will on others. A good rule of thumb, if your post is negative, critical, or argumentative in nature and is not supported by 100% of the site, you are representing your own agenda and not the agenda of the site, it's writers, and most important the readers who make this site possible. Hopefully we will try and make Prospect Insider the best site for everyone involved with it, while only focusing on the best interests of the community at heart, and not letting our own personal agendas dilute the great product that Jason and his staff have worked tirelessly to provide us. |
| 125. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-12-2013 22:07:16 I want to take a moment to say how much I appreciate the positive words from you all that read my posts and enjoy them. It's nice to know that even if you all don't agree with all my comments or ideas, you at least appreciate the effort I put into my posts and that's very satisfying as a writer. I like to research baseball and like to share it with others, not because I think I know everything, but because I like constructive criticism as it helps to balance my objectivity and subjectivity. I also like to hear contrasting arguments to look for flaws in my theories, so I can sharpen my opinions and hypotheses. I'm currently waiting on a legal document so I can travel back to the U.S. with my wife and children, so I happen to have extra time to do what I enjoy most, baseball analysis. In a couple weeks or months, depending on the process, I'll be going back to the U.S. and will be very busy with working, medical appointments for my daughter, and taking care of my 4 kids, so in the not to distant future, I won't be able to contribute as much. |
| 126. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-12-2013 22:10:17 118, I don't come on here because I become "manic", I come on here because I become available. Raising 4 kids, a 9 year old with ADHD, a 3 year old with chronic unexplained seizures, a 2 year old and a newborn, keep me busy. For the last couple months my 2 and 3 year olds has been in the U.S. while my 3 year old is getting tests at Children's Hospital for her medical problems. With only the newborn and the 9 year old at home with my wife and me, I've been able to make time to come online. I guess assumptions aren't always accurate, are they? I think some people see me as a know-it-all. Where I see myself as a "want to know-it-all." I love looking things up and when I'm not on baseball sites, I fill my free time with researching every question that comes to mind from what's going on with my daughter medically to quantum mechanics to stuff as simple as how to get stains from old clothes. I'm just an old baseball rat who loves to talk about my favorite game and learn new things. I don't want to be the enemy of anyone here, but I also won't be the victim just to "not make waves." Hopefully we can start to co-exist better. Sorry for whatever I've done to rub you all the wrong way. |
| 127. By: Juan Valdez on 01-12-2013 23:07:56 Hey WSChamps - hopefully you take this as constructive criticism. Your posts are so long and meandering that it's hard to follow what you're saying. If you want to get your point across, you might want to keep things to the point a little bit more than you are currently. |
| 128. By: d2ret on 01-12-2013 23:25:12 Hes got some of the better content and arguments on here of late guys. I dont know what you guys are looking at... If you do not like how he writes there is a scroll button, and your eyes are capable of skimming down the page quite easily lol. I mean really??? Gimme a break. |
| 129. By: Juan Valdez on 01-12-2013 23:31:55 @128 - I meant it as constructive criticism. Communication is a skill. Also, it isn't just the length of his posts, but there are stylistic issues that make his posts hard to wade through. |
| 130. By: d2ret on 01-12-2013 23:35:32 Who made everybody Jasons TA and said they can grade papers anyways. WSChamps point about censorship is a valid and important one. Nobody here has the right to tell another how or what to write about. Its arrogant and egregious. |
| 131. By: d2ret on 01-12-2013 23:38:38 I wasnt talking about you Juan Valdez. I see the intent of your post. |
| 132. By: rjfrik on 01-13-2013 00:00:01 I think what Juan is trying to say, is what most people feel about WSChamps and frankly it's spot on with what you feel d2ret. WSChamps, has some very good content when it come to baseball. And when it comes to baseball I think his posts, both subject and length are appropriate. Where I have a problem and I believe Juan has a problem is when he starts getting outside of baseball and has essay length posts about who is right or who is wrong or who has the right to write what or follow what. It's the posts that are non-baseball that get everyone a little miffed and delirious. You could say, well then skim over them. The problem with this is, WSChamps has a lot of good content when he's talking about baseball and most of us are aware of that. So that leads us to read all of his comments, no matter the length, looking for baseball material. But if there is no baseball material to be had and we just spent ten minutes reading about retaliation to how someone views him, that is a little off putting and makes the reader really frustrated. Juan is not trying to be the PI police here and neither am I, but as WSChamps said himself, we are all here to moderate each other and the novel like posts that aren't baseball related are just unnecessary and frankly need to stop! Let's keep it baseball please. Yes, Edman is a dickhead, but guess what, we all know it and we all tolerate it. He's like our 60 year old grouchy uncle, you put up with him, even though he's a dick at times. But other times he has stuff that puts all the other thoughts in perspective. You can call him out and put him in his place without the 1000 word essay. In fact you can do it in less then 20 words most times. For example: Edman, you're an idiot. or Edman, do some research, you're wrong. or Edman, quit being an asshole. or Edman, you might be right, but you have a weird way of saying it. etc, etc, etc. Let's keep it short and simple please. |
| 133. By: Edman on 01-13-2013 00:05:31 WSChamps2014, how dare you write this drivel: StandingPat, Rudolf, Edman, how old are you? I know Maqman is 76. He refers to Edman as old man and I think I saw him last year as 59 or something? You four tend to be my biggest critics and are the most outspoken and negative posters on here. From your comments and your lack of desire to read advanced statistical information, how you all talk about "not having time" for reading and researching this, that or aother thing, I'm going to guess you are all over 40 years old. People tend to become more critical of others, negative in general, and very concerned with time as they get older. Older people tend to also view advanced statistics as a form of magic or sorcery. They aren't. Anyone who disagrees with you and your analysis is somehow an antique? I've been following statistics since I was in high school, long before most accepted it. I followed Bill James work when he first started. Don't try to school me or anyone else here, especially because I'm....OMG....56 years old. Thank you for your wonderful prejudice. So I guess you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your analysis is misinformed? I know about statistics, both standard and advanced. An, in my advanced age, I can tell you it's not perfect. It's one of several tools. But us oldtimers, we're lucky to be put to bed without having to put our teeth in a glass of water. You have tried to dominate this forum by sheer volume. If you speak louder than everyone else, you can drown out the voices you don't want to hear. StandingPat, Rudolf, maqman and myself have been here much longer than you. We don't agree on everything. But, we do not go to the great extents you do, to try to prove yourself right. You want to be one of Jason's writers, simply ask him. But don't assume that you have more a right to decide the content here, than those who've been here long before you. If you continue, you'll turn this place into the USS Mariner, where only one type of poster is allowed. |
| 134. By: d2ret on 01-13-2013 02:10:26 Ive been posting on Prospect Insider forever, but frankly I dont think that means my commentary is any more important than a guy who started yesterday... at all. Im not out to defend WSChamp in particular, but it seems to me you all attacked him first and he responded by very circumspectly schooling all of you.... |
| 135. By: Uncle Al on 01-13-2013 02:15:14 WSChamps2014 You are new here and most of these posters aren't used to reading novels and apparently they'd like to see less of them but don't take seriously the nonsense that Edman just posted even though he will get support from a few others. This is the way the site has evolved to where it is today as Jason chose to put up with Edman coming in and posting on this site. I used to post on this site long before Edman and a few others appeared or anyone thought this was the place to be and it had fewer posters but some were very intelligent and had a lot to offer. They don't post here any longer since the arrival of Edman but this isn't much different than what is happening in the rest of the US today. There is room for you here as well as some of the other new guys as this site will continue to change. I don't see where you have anything to really apologize for other than being a little lengthy in your posts. |
| 136. By: Juan Valdez on 01-13-2013 04:23:38 The best online communities are ones in which the participants all make an effort to engage in discussion and dialogue, as opposed to argument. I know that may sound overly idealistic, but I believe it to be true. |
| 137. By: Galway on 01-13-2013 04:44:25 Putting aside all age, personality, and other issues. The comment on content may be appropriate. It is content, but it is in the comments section, the content is the blog's author(s) input. Perhaps if greater volume work is best to submit as an article or create a vehicle for such content. A twitter 140 character limit may be much but some judgment on volume would be a reasonable request. Now Upton, beyond his inconsistentcy at times whether to tude, injury or youth has their actually been any cited instances to point to with his perceived head issues? AZ beat reporters have had pretty positive things to say about him as a team mate and work ethic. Just curious on the origin of the perception. |
| 138. By: Paul Martin on 01-13-2013 06:30:50 @113 Thank you for taking the time to respond to my #111 post. While I may not agree with everything you said, you put a lot of time into it and I enjoyed it. We all have our opinions and it is nice having a site to share them and throw ideas off each other. |
| 139. By: titans12 on 01-13-2013 09:31:54 I love this site there is alot of interesting insight into the M's prospects. It is the best web site to go to for our team for sure. It gets a little to much though when almost every thread 1/3 of the statements have something to do with Edman.I mean is this his web site or what.He has a lot of knowledge of our team but it seems he feels like he has the final opinion on everything. Just wished he would leave people alone and let us just talk about the issues. |
| 140. By: Galway on 01-13-2013 09:43:26 I ask about the origin on Upton because when I was in college Reggie Brooks was a classmate. Super nice guy who was really shy. Lou Holtz refused to Reggie the time of day the first year or two because Reggie's older brother Tony (RIP) was anything but quiet and a thorn in Lou's side. Eventually after all options were exausted Reggie played and became an All-american. Nevr in college or his pro career was their ever a negative word cast against him My long winded point is I understand issues with Upton's brother but are their actually instances in AZ or merely perception that may be colored by someone else's actions? I don't know either way hence I ask, but it wouldn't be the first time there was a gap in perception and reality |
| 141. By: dewey on 01-13-2013 09:48:33 Was the trade a overpay? I can see both sides of the deal the only thing i dont like is since this club has made this a rebuild you dont make this kind of move until your close to contending and they arent even a 2nd place club in the west that was my issue with the overpay according to some. I am a little nervous that the suits may have made JZ nervous to come off what he has been pushing us for 4 years i hupe im wrong. |
| 142. By: candasharp on 01-13-2013 10:29:23 Let's try to get Jedd Gyorko from the Padres. He'd be a lot easier than getting Olt from the Rangers. If we could get Gyorko (or even Rendon from the Nationals), the club could start making plans to move Seager to 2nd base and Ackley to left field or trade Seager in a package that might net us another bat long-term. Prospect for Prsopect trades seem a lot more likely now unless something pops up during spring training due to injury or other outside factors. |
| 143. By: maqman on 01-13-2013 11:20:00 WSChamp knock of the ageist BS. I understand sabremetrics probably as well or better than you. I literally wrote the book on the Atlas missile that put the first American in space probably before you wore your first diaper. I might forget what I had for breakfast but I know what UZR/150 represents. I have no problem with what you say and agree fully that you have some reasoned ideas to put forward and have as much right as I do to put them out there for consideration. As a retired editor and publisher I can tell you that you write way too long. That's just constructive criticism, I don't have time for overdone rhetoric. I know for a fact that is a very common literary fault. |
| 144. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-13-2013 11:35:26 141, There's two things to analyze when looking at whether it was an overpay a) on-field production and b) business value and strategy. a) Is the player we are getting back, worth the prospects we are paying out. And to that you have to answer two questions, is Justin Upton a 3-4 WAR player or a 5-7 WAR player, and secondly can he be re-signed... If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then I think you got good value in terms of on-field production. b) This is where it's a no-brainer, we won this trade in a landslide when you look at what it would have done for negotiating an extension with Felix and bringing in other players via free agency and trade (No Trade Clauses). Most importantly it would have signaled an end to the rebuild and told fans it's time to come back to the ballpark and spend their money. We can debate about what Justin Upton is or is not, all day long, but he's a known quantity with gobs of talent, which the average fan can recognize as being a clear upgrade over the likes of Casper Wells or Raul Ibańez. Or to put more bluntly, he's marketable to fans, players, and businesses that are involved with the Mariners from advertisers to t.v. stations. I can't imagine a way in which the Mariners don't get a big name player, regardless of prospect cost going into this season. After making all the stadium modifications (Edgar's, screen, fences), while only bringing in old wheels is like having a big wedding with Felix the groom, Ackley, Seager, Saunders, Gutierrez, and Smoak as his bestman and ushers, then here comes Morales, which could only be an ugly maid-of-honor without ruining the wedding, you can have your old aunt (Ibańez), your older sister (Bay), your little niece (Andino), and even the sister of the groom (Perez) as part of your wedding, but we still are missing the sexy bride. Stanton, Braun, or CarGo would make a much better bride than Ethier or Bourn. This offseason was supposed to be a coming out party for the Mariners and so far it's been a series of close misses (Hamilton) and bad luck (Upton). The big bat is the only thing missing from the party, it makes all the rest of it go together. |
| 145. By: Galway on 01-13-2013 12:14:52 On the field everyone has their assesment of prospects and of Upton that dictate each persons view. Off the field however I think is fodder for fans but reality its uber rare. I believe reality is fans watch games on TV and come to the park when winning. Special players are special in large part because they are competitive. They win they are happy. All the big names on a roster etc.. and losing still makes for an unhappy star. So I think it comes down to on the field only for everyones happiness. The offseason will be the summ of all the work so let's see what the work is. So far they have been aggressive and trying multiple avenues so we shall see. |
| 146. By: Panhead55 on 01-13-2013 13:23:10 Detroit overpaid Ivan Rodriquez. Washington overpaid Jason Werth. Both players were free agents and were overpaid in money and years. However both signings sent a message to the league, "We are tired of being doormats, and we are serious about competing". Those signings were the catalyst of the turnarounds by both teams. The Ms need to make a splash similar to what Detroit and Washington did. I don't think Bourn is that guy. If the Ms are to make that splash, it will be with an overpay of prospects. |
| 147. By: rotoenquire on 01-13-2013 13:33:14 M's Trade D. Hultzen SP S. Pryer RP C. Furbush RP B. Miller SS TO Arizona Arizona Sends J. Upton OF A.J. Pollock OF To Yankkes M's Get C. Granderson OF T. Austin OF From Yankees |
| 148. By: Panhead55 on 01-13-2013 13:47:44 147 I think Arizona would view Hultzen/Miller as less than Walker/Franklin and they also have to give up Pollack who is a decent prospect. They are not likely to make that trade. In addition Granderson is a free agent after 2013 AND a Boras client. We wouldn't want to make this trade without the unlikely contract extension. |
| 149. By: rjfrik on 01-13-2013 13:58:37 Rather just do the Upton trade and find out what the other piece coming back from Zona was then do that Yankees trade. Yuck. |
| 150. By: Gibbo on 01-13-2013 14:06:33 @ WS Champ great analogy with the wedding and mariners off season. I think you are spot on with the value of this Upton trade, it was worth more than just the player. It is saying hey look we have made some upgrades to the park and gone out and got all the spare parts - Andino, Ibanez, Bay - but we also have Morales and XXX in the heart of our line up now and still have some sexy prospects on the way. Plus if you add in Wells, Guti, Ackley, Smoak, Saunders, Montero taking steps forward (even if only 4 of them do) - then Seager and Jaso stay the same - with the right final 1 or 2 moves this team is ready to compete probably 85ish wins this year and climbing over the next 2 to 3 years after that. @ 147 I would have interest in Granderson for sure but not at that price when he only has 1 year left on his contract. Austin looks interesting but not for all those players when we get one year of Granderson. The big winners in that proposed deal is the Yankees and Arizona. |
| 151. By: thirdbase22 on 01-13-2013 16:18:40 Anything preventing us from shopping Upton around? I'm sure the dBacks wouldn't mind. Maybe to a team with a couple of big bat outfield prospects? |
| 152. By: Gibbo on 01-13-2013 17:51:33 No defnitely nothing stopping that thirdbase22. Its a very possible outcome. The rangers would be up for it but I dont think we would get the right mix of bat/position back so would be hard to get it right, and would you want to possibly strengthen the Rangers. Maybe the yankees or dodgers could get involved. I think we all (myself included) tend to throw out ideas but it is very hard to get 2 team trades done in reality, let alone getting a three team deal agreed to. I guess the other side of it is why not keep our own player prospects? |
| 153. By: Paul Martin on 01-13-2013 22:54:11 @144 nice post! Way to come back after the criticism regarding lengthy posts... |
| 154. By: Edman on 01-13-2013 23:27:21 #151, actually, there is everything preventing Seattle from shopping Upton, they don't own his rights. As Jason has said, three-way deals are very hard to pull off. So, in essence, it's business as usual. The only thing that's known, is that Seattle had a package worked out for Upton. Any other deal would likely change the players involved in any trade. |
| 155. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-13-2013 23:48:54 151, If all else fails, we could try and turn the Upton deal into a 3-team trade, while pulling back Taijuan Walker: Arizona gets: Shelby Miller Nick Franklin Stephen Pryor Charlie Furbush Cardinals get: Justin Upton Stefen Romero Tom Wilhelmsen Mariners get: Carlos Beltran Oscar Taveras This trade would allow them to put Romero at 2B to give Wong days off against lefties, or they can have Romero take over for Freese if he leaves as a free agent. With all his flexibility, Romero could become a super-sub getting 450-500 ABs a year at various positions and take over RF should Upton leave after his contract is up. The Cardinals are getting old and could use some youth, replacing 1 year of a 36 y.o. Beltran with a 3 years of a 25 y.o. Upton and not skipping a beat offensively. We can start the season with Taveras in the minors and Beltran in RF. If Guti, Saunders, Smoak, and Morales are all healthy and productive and we fall out of contention, we can trade Beltran to the Rangers or another contender to start reloading our farm system and then make a push at the deadline or after the season for Stanton. So by 2014, we'd have Stanton and Taveras in the outfield together. Obviously, if we have to add to the package to get a deal done, we could, but I think the values pretty close. Beltran is getting paid for 2.3 WAR, so he has about $6-7M in extra value if you think he won't regress as a 36 year old. A top hitting prospect like Taveras is worth a shade less than $36M. Shelby Miller is worth about $25M if you are calling him a top 10 pitching prospect. The grand total would be about $58M that they would need to be compensated. If you are bearish on Upton he's a 3.5-4.0 WAR player, if you are bullish he's a 5-6 WAR player, and either way he's entering his prime years. Let's say he's a 5.5 WAR player, and say he'll improve for entering peak years, but his true talent/production is closer to 2010/2012 rather than 2009/2011. Which means he's worth about $91M and he'll be paid $38.5M an excess of 52.5M, Wilhelmsen is worth about $40M in excess value, and Romero has a value of $15M which makes the total value going to the Cards equal to $108M approximately. The Cardinals would be receiving an overpay of about $50M in value. However the Mariners would essentially be trading Tom Wilhelmsen, Nick Franklin, Stephen Pryor, Charlie Furbush, and Stefen Romero for Carlos Beltran and Oscar Taveras. The Diamondbacks would be getting the same deal they approved but Miller instead of Walker. |
| 156. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-13-2013 23:53:54 Obviously, if we have to add to the package to get a deal done, we could, but I think the values pretty close. = was supposed to be removed. there was some flow issues with that paragraph, so just skip that part and it makes more sense. |
| 157. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 09:05:39 Making decisions for non baseball reasons such as sending a message has a long history of being driven by owner involvement and just not working. Winning atracts, losing repels period. The Mets prior to Alderson were run with that exact mentality and was a disaster. Failed for the M's when they signed two 40 hr guys in Beltre and Sexson. Even Griffey atracted some fans but when they started losing fans disappeared and well so did Griffey. The Nats didn't improve because of a message. They got lucky winning the lotto w Strasburg and Harper, Zimmerman was home grown, Morse was far from a splash or message. They are atractive because of a bright future and wininng. Tigers I will say is an example where sign first develop second work. But Verlander doesn't become Verlander how important is pudge signing? Dodgers for as big as payroll and many big names fail to win the two years the non-baseball stuff won't matter at all. |
| 158. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 09:11:51 I'm not saying hold onto prospects at all cost either. I love our big 3, I also loved Generation K and that was an unmitigated disaster. Point is there isn't one way to do it. In fact read a good article studying top 10 pitching prospects guys you would say are high ceiling guys, and this study and two others concluded about 60% of them amount to nothing in the MLB. Its a high failure rate way higher than position players. Using prospects to get an outfield probably not a bad idea. Signing a free agent if avail to get that skill set not bad. Signing a big name to send a message no thanks. Wininng sends the biggest message. |
| 159. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 09:20:10 Article was by Scott McKinney |
| 160. By: Edman on 01-14-2013 09:41:14 I agree, Galway. There are some on the internet that tend to superimpose their view onto professional baseball players. What you think a player wants, based on your perception, is not the same as what they really want. There was an interview with Steve Phillips last year in which he said as much. At that time, it was more about keeping Ichiro. Many fans opined about what they thought the younger players thought, that Ichiro was taking time away from them. He pointed out that players do care how a superstar is treated, and showing disrespect can set a bad tone. And why is this? Because, they see themselves as potential superstars and want to know that they will be treated with respect. Moral of the story? It's always a bad idea to assume that what you think about the Mariners, is what the players think. Felix would not rush to sign a contract, because Justin Upton, or any other player becomes a Mariner. For all you know, he could see a future with quality of all the young players around him. Felix has to this point, never made any demands. Would winning help? Of course it would. Would bringing in a significant player in? I would suggest that only if it helped the M's win. And, I find money arguments rather useless, because you are basing them on what you believe their worth is, not what it actually is. Those dollars only work, if their value is established. They could just as easily fall to less than league average. A projection is not a reality. |
| 161. By: maqman on 01-14-2013 11:15:41 Galway gets it IMO with "Winning attracts, losing repels period." Names are important to a degree but it is primarily winning that brings people to a ball park. Peguero can probably hit a ball as far as Hamilton or Wily Mo Pena but unless they are helping the to team win it don't make no never mind to putting butts in the seats which the balls land in. |
| 162. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 12:34:33 160, there is so much fundamentally wrong with these arguments, that they need to be point out for sake of keeping the ship pointed in the right direction. I'm doing this more for the people that actually buy into what you just wrote. Felix said in interviews that he wants to see progress to sign an extension. Since the last extension over 3 years ago, we've had a record of 203-383 with 75 being the high watermark. That's progress, but we're still 20 wins short of being a championship team, progression of young players will help, but it won't solve everything. If you don't think he notices that we missed on Fielder, Hamilton, probably Swisher, and now Upton, you're crazy. It takes stars to win a championship, not just good players and so far stars don't want to come here. That's a problem. We don't need to be psychic. WAR and sabermetrics are for front offices and fans, not players. If you tell me Felix would be as happy with Bourn and Pagan being his teammates as Fielder and Hamilton, I'll call B.S. regardless of WAR, wRC+, or whatever metric you put on the screen to counter my statement. He's even said that the team could use a MOTO bat to take pressure off the other guys. Steve Phillips is a questionable source for roster construction, don't you think? We saw how well his ideas on clubhouse chemistry played out in New York. They went from NL Champs to basement dwellers in 2 offseasons. TWO! Since then he's been offered and/or accepted ZERO GM positions in 10 years. What does that tell you the baseball industry thinks of him as an executive? The youth today is less respectful than 10 years ago so his comments are outdated at best. You stated, being a star involves consistent on-field production when we talked about Upton. Players, especially rookies forget quickly what a player did last year worrying about winning in the present. You think Figgins got treated the same in year 3 as he did in year 1? Let's go to what we know from the horse's mouth: Felix loves the Northwest. He wants to win a championship. He wants to be a Mariner for life. So why no extension? Because only a fool ties his boat to a sinking ship. He must be worried about a championship being attainable. As for the young core, Ackley, Montero, and Smoak combined for less than 2 WAR in 2012, and most of that was defensive value. I'm sure he's noticed the offensive problems. Hell, he's missed out on at least one Cy Young just because the offense has been so inept. "Would winning help? Of course it would. Would bringing in a significant player in? I would suggest that only if it helped the M's win." So we agree winning would help. Check. Do significant players help a team win more than an insignificant players? I would say so! Double check. So where's the confusion?! I can only assume this is indirectly aimed at Upton and his inconsistency. He's been worth 16.7 WAR over the last 4 years and he's two years from his peak production, that's significant in any definition of the word. "And, I find money arguments rather useless, because you are basing them on what you believe their worth is, not what it actually is." You mean like the actual worth of Tim Lincecum when he went from producing 24.3 WAR over 4 years worth of statistical bliss to becoming a right-handed Francisco Liriano? Right, because statistics are so consistent? I'm sure it'd be better to compare AA or AAA players stats versus MLB players, right? Andy Marte, Brandon Wood, Josh Vitters, and many others are clear indications why that method doesn't work; so teams attribute a $ value. "Those dollars only work, if their value is established. They could just as easily fall to less than league average. A projection is not a reality." by Edman http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/7/20/950254/which-is-better-compensation Please take note of this part that I will highlight for you below from the above link: People often think there are two other flaws to this research, but I assure you that Wang's dealt with both of them: ś"You didn't account for bust rate -- prospects flame out all the time". Yes, yes he did account for bust rate. Wang averaged everyone's performance together in each category above. Many prospects bust, some become MLB regulars, and a few become stars. A player who becomes a star will provide $100M+ in excess value. You don't see numbers nearly that high the table above, because that possibility is countered by the much higher probability of busting. Simply put, bust rate is in the calculation already. ś"Prospects aren't worth as much because you have to wait many years to collect their value. Money and production are worth more now." True. Wang knew this and built it in to his research: However, all things being equal, youfd rather have an all-star season now instead of an all-star season four years in the future. To account for this, I used an 8% discount rate and converted a prospectfs average WAB [Win Shares Above Baseline] into a discounted WAB (DWAB). So yes a projection is a reality, as much or more so as Figgins and Upton repeating their last 6 WAR seasons or Lincecum maintaining his 4-year average of 6 WAR going into 2012. Nothing is guaranteed. We just work with the best information available to us. Just like the GMs in baseball and everyone else in whatever field they study. These numbers also justify almost any trade you can think of within a margin of $5M-$20M for trades not considered lopsided. I stated Upton had a + value of $52.5M approx. Walker $15.2M, Franklin $23.4M, Pryor B prospects = $7.3M, Furbush [1 WAR x 5 yrs.(5 WAR) - arb. of 1.8 seasons (1.8 WAR) = 3.2 WAR x $5.5M ($17.6M). All together the package we offered for Upton equaled $63.5M and even without the "other player" going back to the Mariners as was reported, that's well within a reasonable margin of error at $11M. If Upton was a true 6 WAR player, we'd have gained an extra $5.5M per season in the trade which would have taken us from a -$11M to a +$5.5M, hense the $5-$20M margin of error (at the time of trade). The method is tested, used, and effective. Sorry guys, I know this was long, but I wanted to save you all some time clicking links and scrolling to comments, however I wanted you to have the sources all the same. Sorry again in advance for the eye rubbing and coffee drinking. |
| 163. By: rjfrik on 01-14-2013 13:04:07 Good post WS. I still think putting Walker in the trade was an overpay by Mariners (unless there really was a player coming back from AZ) and that is because I feel, on my own projections of Walker by watching him pitch, that he will become more valuable then 15.2M. I really do see him as an ace in the future. But then again, we all know how fragile projecting a minor league pitcher can be. But sometimes those heralded prospects do become aces, ie Felix, Kershaw, Price, Cain, Hamels, Strasburg, etc. |
| 164. By: Edman on 01-14-2013 13:10:33 You have any references to Felix saying, as you imply, that he demands winning before he'll resign? Do you wish to define his definition of progress? Could having a lot of young talent (Ackley, Smoak, Hultzen, Walker, etc.) qualify as progress? Instead, you have decided for him, what he means. You have this misplaced belief that you understand what players want. Have you had discussions with them? No, as I said, you superimpose your belief system on them, thinking that you KNOW what they want. Guessing is not knowing. Steve Phillips = Actual GM WSChamps2014 = GM wannabe You don't care to take what he said into context. You'd rather bring up his track record, and YOUR assessment about the youth today. Where's your psychology degree? You choose to throw in your take, as if it's fact. It's not, it's just your opinion, based on your personal beliefs. |
| 165. By: Edman on 01-14-2013 13:26:09 In addition. WS wrote: .... It takes stars to win a championship. Billy Beane might disagree with you. I'm sure he'd say it takes sound team management decisions. He's even said that the team could use a MOTO bat to take pressure off the other guys. Another duh moment. Of course the team could use a MOTO bat, as could many teams? The is a moment for Commander Obvious. But, it is not a moment of condemnation from Felix. Hell, he's missed out on at least one Cy Young just because the offense has been so inept. BS. Did he need a great offense to win his Cy Young? Voters are much smarter today, and don't value a W-L records as much as a pitcher's ability. That's just a lame excuse. |
| 166. By: jgthompson21 on 01-14-2013 13:30:13 Billy beane? Seriously? How many championships has be won again? |
| 167. By: Edman on 01-14-2013 14:07:09 Okay, jg, since you want to be that way. The 1969 Mets, at the point that they won the World Series, was not full of star players. Happy now? Star players have nothing to do with winning Championships. Being a good, balanced team does, regardless of the presence of star players, or not. Beane's formula occasionally yields results. And, he didn't need to go acquire star players to do it. In fact, he is more known for trading star players, before they become a financial burden. There is no one formula to becoming a winner, it can be done many ways. |
| 168. By: Faded & X-rated on 01-14-2013 14:24:52 The comment sections in Jason's last two posts have been gold! PURE GOLD!! It prompted me to quit lurking and sign up. Related to the topic, I was against the trade when it was first announced.....it seemed like a lot to give up and the M's still had several holes to fill on the ML club. It's a moot point tho as Upton will never come to Seattle. |
| 169. By: ripperlv on 01-14-2013 14:57:38 I've been trying to stay out of all this. Some of you act like you own this blog. I really don't care about your ages, your family, your dog, the Mets, your job, how many days/weeks/years you've been a member. My request is that you try and keep your posts a bit shorter, and try to stay on the subject. We all get carried away at times, that's OK. Just try to get back on track, please. The subject was Upton rejecting the M's. |
| 170. By: sexymarinersfan on 01-14-2013 15:05:09 This whole entire group is like a bunch of rabid dogs waiting for information to drop. Hanging out hope and looking for any tiny tid bit piece of news that could significantly impact the ballclub in a positive way. This town is literally starving for a winning franchise. No wonder people are throwing themselves off of bridges! Ok, that last part probably wasn't funny, but you catch my drift. Just calm down people. This team isn't done reconstructing it's roster by any means. I was hoping that the Seahawks could at least make it to the Super Bowl to help take the focus off of the M's until something big happened, but the offseason is REALLY about to begin to draaaaaag! But let's go Mariners! ;-) |
| 171. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 15:09:47 163, your point is well justified and I agree. It's why Atlanta never wants to trade it's pitching, because one position player is worth two pitchers and essentially you can never get the same value trading your pitching that you can get by promoting them to the majors. Which is why Towers wants pitchers, more return and greater chance of hitting the lottery on prospects. While I believe in our pitching prospects more than other teams pitchers because of their size, mechanics, arsenal of pitches, and minor league statistics. It's just a hunch. As an example, I'm not a big fan of Carlos Martinez, nor was I a fan of Banuelos, Teheran, Arodys Vizcaino, or Randall Delgado, purely from an indurance standpoint due to their size. Our big 4 (Walker, Hultzen, Paxton, Maurer) are 6'3 or taller and 210 lbs. or more. All of this points towards less durability issues in the future. We have lots of pitching in our top 10 and it's for this reason we are talent rich and trading poor. It's also why Didi Gregorius is all the Diamondbacks got for Bauer, the additional pitching two bullpen arms for two bullpen arms didn't make a ton of difference. If I was the Mariners, I would try to save the pitchers and work most of my trades around position players when possible. That's why I gave the trade suggestion in comment 155, with Shelby Miller going to the D-Backs instead of us selling low on Walker. While getting a short-term and long-term answer in RF. |
| 172. By: Gibbo on 01-14-2013 15:27:03 This argument around winning atracts, losing repels period... yes thats right, but we are not winning, so players prefer other clubs. GMZ has also been promoting that the fences are coming in and we are ready to take the next step, but getting palyers to come here (or anywhere) is a sales pitch - one that at the moment is harder for our lack of star/quality talent and poor track record. So to reverse that you need to start winning and better players help you win - again all pretty obvious.So it doesnt have to be a team of superstars you are right but even a team of good players is fine, but we dont have a team of good enough players, do we? We also need to make sure that while getting better players and improving we hang onto the good players that we currently have. None of us know what is going on in Felix's mind but he will only tolerate losing for soo long - winners want to win and Felix is a winner and history tells us eventually most players want to go where the money is and as the age where they can win championships. |
| 173. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 15:32:38 169, we all came to an agreement, read don't skim and you can be a part of the solution instead of the problem. Thanks in advance for understanding I care as much about YOU scrolling past my comments as you do about my personal problems. I care about what the others said, because they didn't come across as rude and confrontational, while showing through his comments that he didn't bother to read the posts before him. Based on the last two threads, Jason just made some money, so obviously there's other people that like the flow of the conversations. When threads end at 20-25 comments, that sucks, because then there's nothing to read, which is a worse problem than too much to read, even if some of it is below board quality. I much prefer threads with 100+ comments so there is always something to talk about on days like this. Complaining two days late doesn't solve anything or make it better, it just fills more boxes with whinning as everyone else said, stop the whinning and stick to baseball. |
| 174. By: Paul Martin on 01-14-2013 15:47:08 We just signed 17 year old Luis Liberator of the DR! Anyone know anything about him? What happened to the 2 Cuban prospects? Guess we at least have another player to use that fancy new facility they built... |
| 175. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 15:48:32 172, bingo. you hit it all, great post. I think good players with the upside to be great is what this team needs, guys like Upton. Not him exactly, but his type of player, young, established, needing to polish his skills or gain consistency. We do need at least 2-3 star type players, minimum. Felix, and a hitter or two would do it. 2012 Giants - Cain, Bumgarner, Posey, Sandoval 2011 Cardinals - Pujols, Holliday, Carpenter 2010 Giants - Lincecum, Posey, Cain, Bumgarner 2009 Yankees - Do I need to list them all? A-Rod, Jeter, etc. 2008 Phillies - Howard, Utley, Rollins, Hamels 2007 Red Sox - Ortiz, Ramirez, Youkilis, Beckett, Schilling we can keep going... stars help 165, Beane has yet to win a championship BECAUSE he trades away his stars. Thanks for proving my point. |
| 176. By: Paul Martin on 01-14-2013 15:55:55 Happy Anniversary!!! A year ago today we traded for Jesus Montero! Jack, go ahead and have a beer and take a moment to enjoy that victory, then get right back to the phones and get that middle of the order bat that has aluded you so far this offseason. |
| 177. By: Paul Martin on 01-14-2013 15:58:27 Ooops, it was a year ago yesterday. |
| 178. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 16:08:41 Gibbo, I agree there needs to be increaing urgency to become a winner. My point was to be dogmatic that it has to be a huge name or no way in hell ever trade prospect X cause he is a superstar is a mistake on both ways. I referenced the Mets because the non-baseball argument was placed side by side with the baseball one and that org is the longest running example of how big a mistake that it is. It simply has not worked. Now a good baseball decision could be a big name or it could be knowing who not to trade and pull a Bedard trade. There just is not a single formula but all good ones are based on baseball and winning. |
| 179. By: Edman on 01-14-2013 16:10:56 I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I want to know about one of your statement. ...we all came to an agreement, read don't skim and you can be a part of the solution instead of the problem. Who are the we? I don't recall everyone signing up to this. You may have suggested it, but that doesn't mean that it was a group decision. And, if people doen't want to read a long post that you present, are they part of the problem? Many have stated that they'd like shorter posts. Are you now implying that we put up with it and fall inline or shut-up? |
| 180. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 16:20:26 Word of caution, the mis-use of statistics leads to false confidence and statements such as let me get this in the right direction. The underlying assumption being your way of thinking is right other ways are wrong. I actually agree with trading prospects for a bat although Tai Walker for Upton is an ouch for me. Any good statistical analysis produces questions, data in of itself is not answers and answers without data are theories. The methodolgy cited is incorrect due to an insufficent discount rate to reflect actual hit rates, normalized data rather which typically discounts outliers. Outliers have the greatest predictive ability in a data set and highest informational content. The methodology also fails to measure persistence or account for varying Hurst cycles. I am not saying it is worthless. It is a very good tool and those that ignore do so at their peril. But not understanding the limitations also breeds over confidence in projecting the future. An aggregate number is informative but not understanding the self similarity in the data sets means confidence in conclusions needs to be tempered. What questions does that data tell you? Please realize the is more than one way to usually achieve a specific outcome so a right way is not per se the right way. |
| 181. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 16:43:49 If you are use money per win then would not Billy Beane actually be the most succesful GM? I know that metric may be inconvient but he can't be bwat via that metric but also prove the point of the only right way as well. Either wrong metric or one conclusion is wrong. |
| 182. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 16:44:34 Yes I am the worse typist, my apologies. |
| 183. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 16:47:06 179, everybody agreed longer posts should be baseball only. The shut up you're stupid posts should be shorter. As for the long posts, some people want them for the detailed content and shouldn't have these posts over-edited to the point of mutilation to condone laziness by a few people. If you don't want to read the long posts skip it and don't be a thread-nazi. If you are going to write a long post, keep it to topic and cut corners to get to the point. The real measurement should be content per word, hypothetically speaking. A bunch of filler with I like, I think, you should know, followed with little else is a waste of words, hense the complaint. Duly noted and taken into effect. The only person with a shut-up and fall-in-line approach seems to be the people not wanting to read long posts. I'd also say that there were over 10-15 commenters that agreed upon the format contexts and only a small number of the non-conformists count words instead of content. You know what I mean by that, right? |
| 184. By: dewey on 01-14-2013 17:31:58 Is anyone else on here tired of hearing about the WAR stat? Maybe its me but the game is played by humans not some stupid computer who projects everything thats the way i feel. If it was that easy to predict how come no one has mastered it there are alot of Ivy league guys running clubs that never win? |
| 185. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 18:14:15 181, no he wouldn't be the best GM, look at their fan base, they don't stick because he doesn't keep franchise players. His number one job is to build the fan base and make a financially successful product, it is a business after all. He's also been wrong with his trades as much as he's been right. To that point, he's failed to rebuild on numerous occasions and has had horrible drafts recently, even his recent success in 2012 wasn't with more than a handful of the young prospects in his system, which is why he's been rebuilding for 6 years. In any other small market team where he wasn't a part owner, he would've been fired after so long between playoff games. What long-term assets did they win with in 2012? If the Rangers didn't fall on their faces, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Do you believe Brandon Moss and Chris Carter were breakouts or small-sample-size successes? Johnny Gomes? Gone. Stephen Drew? Gone. Brandon McCarthy? Gone. Cliff Pennington? Gone. Brandon Inge? Gone. What have they done to replace that 7.4 WAR? They brought in a 4th outfielder with 2.8 WAR in 2012 to replace one of Reddick (4.8 WAR), Cespedes (3.1 WAR), or Crisp (2.9 WAR), and re-signed Bartolo Colon, then added a Japanese SS, which should be good for about 0.0 WAR probably if they're lucky. You also have to add up the WAR per $ on all the years, not just the seasons that fit your model and not just in the years he wins, but in the years where he decimates his team with stupid/pointless trades, adding a 4th good outfielder (Young) who costs 1/8 to 1/10 of your payroll, when a new outfield is the least necessary trade target and more over at the cost of your only above-average SS is silliness. I can't even imagine what Nakajima would have do this year to make sense of his signing and the Chris Young trade. Resources on a small-market club are too valuable to throw at positions of strength. As for 2006, the last year before 2012 that they made the playoffs, they had All-Stars like Frank Thomas, Nick Swisher, Eric Chavez, Dan Haren, Barry Zito (pre-suck), with Huston Street and Justin Duchscherer forming a great 1-2 punch to end games. Even then they exceeded their pythagorean W/L by 8 games to squeak in the playoffs. Had they not had Bavasi's crap team to beat a ridiculous 17 out of 19 games, they would've finished well outside the playoffs. If they would've won 4 less games against the M's for a 13-6 W/L om the year, the Angels would've won the division. And they finished 2 games behind the wild card winning Tigers. There's a lot of luck in those results and to just wash over it with, Beane is just awesome, is cavalier at best. You have to go back to 2003 to find his next playoff team outside of 2006 and 2012, so it's not like he's got his formula down. People are calling for Loria to be bought out by MLB for only winning a championship every 7 years, Beane can't even make a solid playoff team that often and you want to call him... THE BEST GM in baseball? That's a little exagerative, isn't it? He's putting +35 WAR teams on the field for $70-80M a year with just prospects assuming many spots on the team. There are teams like say the Rays that have a smaller payroll and roll out +40 WAR seasons every year. Even they are smart enough to keep their stars and they don't go 5-9 years between fielding playoff caliber teams. So what is your real point? Can you tell me what conclusions we are drawing, because you aren't very clear with your argument. |
| 186. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 18:25:32 184, if the stat wasn't worth anything, people wouldn't use it. Do you want to take a poll on how many people know how to correctly use wRC+? wOBA+? What are the differences? Do you want to hazard guesses at values of base running and fielding using the human eye? WAR is an accepted catch all term for the skills involved with baseball that measures overall worth of a player and can be used to loosely determine future value. What other metric does that? If you don't like the metric. Which would you like to use? You want to compare Hamilton versus Bourn, so let's use wRC+ and screw Bourn out of half his value. Or maybe we should just look at runs saved and make Hamilton look like he should've signed a minor league contract. Don't tell me what you are bored with, unless you have a substitute for the data points besides talking about objective arguments like, his swing looks the same and Figgins is playing okay defense, so he's a good player. If only things were so easy. Good thing we stopped looking at those silly stats like WAR, so we don't incorrectly evaluate a player. It sounds like you would rather complain about the metrics and just sit in the stands and guess which player has the fastest bat speed. As if all the statistical advancements are worthless. I can sit in the stands and pick the good players too, but that doesn't mean I forget about stats. |
| 187. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-14-2013 18:27:22 184, another thing it doesn't project, it merely reflects what has happened to give a general direction as to where the next data points will fall. It's not exact, but it's better than walking down a line of players, pointing a stick at a little fat kid and saying he's going to be the next all-star. |
| 188. By: dewey on 01-14-2013 18:31:21 Hey WS champ there are alot of ways to skin a cat but when all you use is stats what is the use of having scouts? I see every team employs about 30 of them. Ive read enough articles new school versus old school all that stuff and the one thing it allways seems to stand out is that old scouts say they have used stats for 20 plus years but it doesnt make there decisions for them there eyes do thats all i was saying sorry for upsetting you.. |
| 189. By: Edman on 01-14-2013 18:31:45 dewey, I don't mind WAR, but I do hate the way some use it as "the answer". It is not, nor will it ever be. It is a good stat, but it cannot tell you about mental make-up, mechanical attributes, mechanical flaws, work ethic, etc. Baseball will always involve observation and teaching. No stat will ever be used to determine a player's ability. It is like all statistics, a way to narrow down a list of variables. But, observation will always play a primary role. Many misuse WAR. Even within the statistical community, they value aspects different. Viva la scouts, instructors and managers, for they will have the most impact on a player, and evaluation of a player. |
| 190. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 18:33:13 Actually I asked a question based on your metric. I made no statement either positive or negative. What is the sample size in assessing why A's fans do not attend games? You know that has been an issue the for them since the late 70's even when bash brothers were there. I'm not sure how luch has sustained a 20 year career for Beane if so he should be buying more lotto tickets. My statement was you are making over confident opinion statements as facts because you simply do not understand the limitations of the math and hence are seeing data as answers rather than questions. It is a common mistake with all of statistics. If I modeled baseball performance what model would I use I believe is your question. If I did I would model based on fractal market hypothesis since I am the co-author of that and seek self simalarity and linkeages to lead to questions whose answers should be predicitve of fat tails and decay. But in the end without good baseball knowledge no set of numbers will work long as unless it had an informational advantage it should decay over time. Bottom line if it was as simple as an algorithm owners would just hire math grad students, its more complicated with many many paths to success. Its arrogant to view a single path in my view, but to each their own. Its baseball, I'll save my numbers for work. |
| 191. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 18:40:38 Data are also context depedent as is analysis. The Tampa GM, Pittsburg, or Beane just do not have the set of options due their context as Cashman so numbers without context may be reflecting the context or may reflect skill or lack of skill. Merely a guess without context. We all guess, its called opinions. They just aren't facts. |
| 192. By: Edman on 01-14-2013 18:52:09 Good example. Boeing took all their brilliant (I assume) young minds together, and decided on a new path to building an airplane, the 787. They had a brilliant idea to rethink the building of an aircraft. Instead of building a prototype, they decided to put a bunch of young, CAD designers to work and design the plane only on the computer. It seemed perfect. They designed the aircraft on electronic paper. It all seemed so logical. Boeing didn't want the advice of the older designers, who actually had experience building an aircraft. They wanted fresh, new ideas. A virtual airplane built in a virtual enviroment. Then, when they started to assmeble the aircraft, parts didn't fit as they were suppose to. Because there were so many vendors, they didn't have enough control of their own design. None of those virtual designers calculated variances in temperature, affects of shipping, or impracticality of application when they put parts together. What was the result? They had to start almost from the beginning, and go back to standard building processes and controlling processes within and outside of the plant. The moral of the story? Don't fix what ain't broke. Trying to be too smart, can make you look mighty dumb. Baseball survived for many years without advanced statistics. They are only one tool. Following any one tool is a sure path to failure. You evaluate all the data. As I said before, statistics have always been about sorting the data you have, to allow you to know what processes work best versus those that don't. But, they are not the tool that actually gets anything done. That still falls on human interaction and thought. |
| 193. By: rjfrik on 01-14-2013 19:07:44 Edman, You say you aren't trying to be confrontational in your post in 179 but then you go ahead and be confrontational. Listen. I know you and WS rub each other the wrong way. But can you guys both agree to disagree and call it. The back and forth is a little tiring and when one party puts it to bed, the other party kicks the hornets nest, so to speak. Come on guys. |
| 194. By: rjfrik on 01-14-2013 19:18:31 192. True. Anyone who things metrics are the end all be all, aren't really in the game. It's only part of the equation. |
| 195. By: FatBat on 01-14-2013 19:22:51 189 well said. Beane had been successful not because he gets to the playoffs every 6 years or whatever but because year in and year out he puts a competitive team on the field. This is weighed by being above 500. I wonder how war played into his signing Cespedes or was it the physicality of his body and just saying "I want him" "that guy over there" and points. That's what makes baseball so great in that not everyone has the right formula that is right, it's an assessment if talent and numbers. Some times you just tip your hat and say well played my friend. War is a great start. But not where you end up. That's done on the field. |
| 196. By: Mackie on 01-14-2013 19:34:22 @169, good comment, ripperlv. And I think Sexymarinersfan is right in #170... pissing matches like these are probably what happens as a result of all of us wanting information during a stagnant time when not much is happening, and when we all want the Mariners to do SOMETHING. I think a number of people on here have greater insights than I tend to, so I come here to learn and formulate my opinions in part from reading those more informed opinions. Which is why I tend to avoid leaving marks on the wall if I can help it. 8-) Was the package offered for Upton too much? To what extent? Because this is a site where prospects tend to get discussed more than in lots of other places, do we overvalue prospects? Could be... When I look at that package, I think it would have been an overpay because as Jason said, it would have been those players for three years of Upton... and I think both Franklin and Walker in the same deal would have been too much, because I think those two are as close to "can't miss" as we have in our minors... but that's just my opinion. (Based on Jason's and lots of the rest of yours!) |
| 197. By: Galway on 01-14-2013 19:46:45 I think it was agressive and I would not include Tai Wailker for anyone but Stanton. That being said I think on the high side but not an overpay when you consider how low the hit rate is for even the top 10 pitchers. I'm like Franklin but probably not as much as others. Good player but not unique to me. |
| 198. By: WSChamps2014 on 01-15-2013 01:12:21 188, scouting is more important the further you are from the majors, because as you get closer to the majors the talent evens out. Statistics don't tell the story when you are facing a blue chip high school prospect throwing 95 one day and a junk baller in the 70s the next who would be lucky to pitch in community college. Scouting major league players is more about looking for hidden injuries or bad habits that might be causing a player to regress. An example is Jose Bautista. Someone in the Blue Jays system saw a mechanical flaw in his hitting approach and recommended acquiring him. When they brought him in, the hitting coach had him start his swing a split-second earlier and now you have a homerun beast that destroys the league with an awesome aproach. Scouts are important in minor league baseball when a player is performing way below or way above expectations. Also when a player is playing in a league with an average age significantly higher or lower and his numbers don't make sense. But also scouts are important when park factors render the statistics virtually useless, like in High Desert for example. When Nick Franklin got to AAA, the first thing we did is look at the statistics and for a guy who was destroying AA, he sucked in Tacoma, so we looked for answers, then scouts said he was the same guy as was in AA, just that he needed to tailor his approach to more advanced pitching and he was still having the same problem with his hands drifting occasionally from the left side, while his right side looked horrible from top to bottom. Scouts serve a purpose, but they are usually looking for specific things at higher levels, whereas at lower levels they are just rating their overall abilities to compensate for a lack of consistent competition to judge them against statistically. This is why everyone says we can throw out statistics for low minors, winter leagues, and international summer leagues (VZ and D.R. specifically). If scouts confirmed that statistics could do their job, they wouldn't have one. So it's not a great argument, even if I do believe that scouts are important. I will say there's a place for stats and a place for scouting, but to dismiss stats as being for ivy league nerds that know nothing about the game is crap. I never laid eyes on Fister when he was drafted, but I saw him as a future #2 or #3 statistically after his first two years in the minors. Jason dismissed the idea of Fister being a future mid-rotation arm as being ridiculous based on scouting him in person. He said something to the effect that Fister might be a #5 or a long reliever at best. Now I think Jason does a great job and it's not an insult to him. Nobody can be right all the time. I'm just saying that my stats lead me to him when Jason's eyes which I consider to be among the best in the game for scouting, didn't see it. So scouts don't get it right every time, but neither do statistics. I picked out Carlos Santana as a player of interst a year before the Casey Blake trade, however there have been a good number of players I liked like Jorge De La Rosa from the Yankees who never became anything. On paper I liked Juan Ramirez and Phillippe Aumont, but in video they both look like C-level prospects to me at best, when they were being talked about as top prospects. In person, I saw lots of guys play for the Aquasox, I thought Snelling looked great, but I didn't think he'd ever be big enough to take advantage of his tools. It turned out that injuries were his downfall, so I was wrong there. I liked Bloomquist a ton and thought his glove was excellent even in Everett and he'd hit enough to be a poorman's Chuck Knoblauch with a better glove. Instead Bloomquist became a poorman's McLemore. But it's hard scouting them if you aren't there for enough games. Statistics also can help lead scouts to players that deserve more notice. Byron Buxton became a big prospect because of his stats, while the competition was horrible, the numbers got scouts to go see him play. When there, they saw a guy who was a top prospect playing in the backwoods of Georgia against horrible to okay at best players and who had a great personality. No scout would've gone to checkout those games had Byron not been wearing out the scoresheets. It was only by scouting with the eyes that they saw the tools and only using their knowledge of the game were they able to guess how those tools would relate to other top prospects and more advanced competition. I've stated in other posts that I like certain players as a scout looking with my eyes and other players catch my attention with their stats, but I use both when possible to evaluate a player and just because I rely a lot on stats doesn't mean I can't tell a hitch in a swing, when a guy is drifting too much with their hands, or when a pitcher is over-stressing their elbow/shoulder with their throwing motion. We've been talking recently about major league players and as I stated, the closer you are to the majors, the more you depend on stats. So conversations have resorted to statistical analysis. When we talk about the prospects specifically, then we'll depend more on scouting reports and what the eyes tell us. I wanted to answer your comment as thoroughly as possible to explain my position because I don't think it's black and white about scouting versus statistics... Just to let you know, it's my eyes that tell me Justin Upton is going to be a beast over the next three years, while my stats tell me he'll be above-average with another close to 6 war season mixed in. My eyes tell me the bat is special and he's going to pull a Beltre this year and smash 35-40 homeruns, it's my stats that tell me he'll hit 25 HRs and put up a season similar to 2009 with a lower average. I trust my eyes and that's why I wanted Upton in Seattle. |
| 199. By: ripperlv on 01-15-2013 07:54:11 WSChumps The subject of the blog is "Upton rejects deal to M's. I don't think you'll been on the subject since we started. Don't accuse me of anything. I stick by my statement. We all came to agreement is BS. I've been trying to stay out of all this. Some of you act like you own this blog. I really don't care about your ages, your family, your dog, the Mets, your job, how many days/weeks/years you've been a member. My request is that you try and keep your posts a bit shorter, and try to stay on the subject. We all get carried away at times, that's OK. Just try to get back on track, please. The subject was Upton rejecting the M's. Things have not changed since I wrote my post, so fuck off, and quit with the war and peace drivel. |
| 200. By: candasharp on 01-15-2013 08:22:48 Time for a new topic ... |
| 201. By: 5-Tool Poster on 01-15-2013 08:48:01 Dear middle-aged men, Find something better to do than devolve every conversation on this comment feed into a fifth grade playground argument. Yes, Edman and others -- that means you. Grow up. Sincerely, Ken Griffey Jr. |
| 202. By: Edman on 01-15-2013 09:17:12 LMAO.....being schooled by someone who finds a need to pretend to be a superstar player.....now that's precious. |
| 203. By: sexymarinersfan on 01-15-2013 09:17:23 Starving! |
| 204. By: Edman on 01-15-2013 09:31:10 Not starving at all. There is plenty to talk about. But, some seem to be stuck on one subject. Dewey: What time is it? WSChamps: As I look at my watch, it reminds me of the invention of the first pocket watch. The year was.......500 words later.......... And in closing, that's what lead me to the conclusion that the time is 10:00 AM. The key to writing is to know your audience, and keep yourself confined to the subject. Did dewey ask for list of his personal hits and misses? |
| 205. By: Galway on 01-15-2013 09:32:39 In terms of potential how big is the gap between Miller and Franklin? I don't see it as great diff but perhaps I am not giving Franklin enough credit and Miller too much bacause I have seen him more. |
| 206. By: Edman on 01-15-2013 09:53:29 Franklin and Miller are not that similar. They both have gap power, but Franklin will likely be more a power hitter, where as, Miller will likely hit more for average. Franklin has enough natural power to at least be considered as a thirdbaseman in the future, where Miller will likely be a middle-infielder. |
| 207. By: rjfrik on 01-15-2013 11:24:33 Jason we need new content. Please!!! |
| 208. By: Edman on 01-15-2013 11:40:42 Wow, Soriano gets $28 Million for two years from the Nationals to close games. I'm stunned, but not surprised. Nobody ever said that all baseball teams will spend money effectively. I guess Soriano was correct to think that someone would pay more than the Yankees. |
| 209. By: FatBat on 01-15-2013 11:45:44 I'm stunned and surprised! That is crazy wipe my ass with hundies kinda money. Wow sooo um what does that mean for storen? |
| 210. By: rotoenquire on 01-15-2013 11:46:02 Franklin is more of a M. Young type when it comes to the bat. .280 AVG with 10-15HR and 10 SB's. Franklin does notover excell at any one thing. However, Franklin is further along than Miller at playing the SS position. Miller is the power bat and has more speed than Franklin. .290 AVG with 20-25HR and 25SB's I would have no problem trading Franklin in a deal. Because of Miller being just a year behind the progession of Franklin. This is based on scouting reports and articles I have seen. |
| 211. By: FatBat on 01-15-2013 11:56:09 Luis liberato? Any body know much about the 17 yr old kid we signed? |
| 212. By: sexymarinersfan on 01-15-2013 12:01:40 .......And then there's Edman. The only poster who I can think of who would disagree and argue with "gravity". |
| 213. By: sexymarinersfan on 01-15-2013 12:03:39 Edman, is Franklin likely doesn't have the arm strength to make it as a shortstop, what makes you think that he could profile as a thirdbaseman? |
| 214. By: maqman on 01-15-2013 12:13:39 Wow color me surprised by the Soriano signing. It's nothing more than my opinion, but to me it's an overpay. Re: Oakland attendance. It's not only a small market, it has a bad stadium (although I have some good memories of it) and is an economically distressed area. There (IMO) attendance does not equal performance. |
| 215. By: Edman on 01-15-2013 12:45:11 sexymarinerfan, the same was said about Kyle Seager, that he couldn't play thirdbase because of his arm strength. Not all things stay the same. Nick Franklin is a baseball rat, meaning he eats and sleeps baseball, and knows how to get things done. Stuff that doesn't go on paper. I suggest that you read an article by marc w on USSM, where he interviewed Connor Glassy and Jason Parks about how they construct top prospect lists. Read their comments about Franklin. |
| 216. By: dewey on 01-15-2013 13:12:59 Why is anyone surprised on Soriano signing Rizzo and Boras seem to sign alot of guys together.Hell i dont blame Rizzo boras has alot of good players but woerth ,Rendon,Harper etc he gets alot of his players |
| 217. By: rjfrik on 01-15-2013 13:17:22 The money spent on Soriano is put into context when it's spent by the front runners to win the world championship. If the Mariners signed Soriano to that deal I would be pissed. If the Mariners were actually the Nationals then I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's just another bullet for them to fire off at the rest of the league. Nationals are going to be dangerous this year. |
| 218. By: sexymarinersfan on 01-15-2013 14:03:28 Edman, I will say this. The time that I've spent talking to Nick Franklin at the Salty Seniorita in Peoria, and Spring Training, the dude has one hell of a handshake. I don't know how that would bode towards him having a strong throwing arm, but man that kids got a death grip! And I consider myself to be a pretty strong man. |
| 219. By: Edman on 01-15-2013 14:32:09 From everything that I've read about Franklin, is that he's a great kid who knows a lot about the game. Tools are great, but if you don't know how to get the most out of your tools, then they get wasted. I'm sure if he was asked to play third, he could adapt. He might not be the next coming of Mike Schmidt, but he'd get the most out of his tools. The kid is 21 (compared to Miller @ 23), and played in AAA for half of last season. Not many kids reach AAA that quickly. I'll be interested to see if his game matures this coming season. |
| 220. By: Panhead55 on 01-15-2013 15:33:52 Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it take a stronger arm to play SS than 3B. The ball gets to you quicker at 3B giving you more time, and the average throw from 3B is no longer than the average throw from SS. If Franklin's arm is fringy from SS it ought to be adequate from 3B. |
| 221. By: Jerry on 01-15-2013 16:03:24 Yeah, I gotta agree with Edman on this. I think there is a common belief that players don't tend to improve on defense. That might be true in a lot of cases. But look at Ackley. Hardly anyone thought he could even be acceptably below average there, and he's turned into a plus defender. Seager as well, although I think with him it was more people thinking his bat didn't project to be a starter (honestly, I'm still skeptical that he is as good as he looked last year, although I hope I'm wrong). Carlos Triunfel has also been able to stay at a position that most didn't think he could stick at. Liddi too. Even Montero was better than I'd expected (admittedly, I expect hilariously bad defense). My point is, I'd let Franklin stay at SS as long as possible. Brendan Ryan won't likely be the teams SS past 2013. We have good depth in Franklin, Triunfel, Miller, Chris Taylor, Martin Peguero and Timmy Lopes in the system, but those guys are spread out among many different levels. There is no glut of shortstops in the system. The same isn't true of 2B, where we already have Ackley, Seager, and Romero who project best to play there. Might as well leave them at more premium positions until they absolutely prove they can't stick. Ideally, Ackely and Seager turn into above average or better players at their current positions, Franklin can replace Ryan, and Romero ends up being a very valuable utility guy (3B/2B/1B/LF). But might as well explore that possibility as long as possible before moving on to other options. The lesson we should learn is that some guys do actually improve defensively. Franklin might not ever be Ryan (few can be), but he could make up for lack of elite agility and range with very good footwork and instincts. And his bat should definitely play there. There is no reason to make a decision at this point, anyhow. |
| 222. By: Paul Martin on 01-15-2013 16:46:48 Two quick points: 1. Staying on topic regarding Upton rejecting us...recently Jason gave us the chance to propose a trade. If I had proposed traded Walker and the three other prospects for Upton, everyone on this site would have ridiculed me to no end. I would have been criticized and called all kinds of names. But because Jack almost made the trade, we have people defending it and trying to justify the move. Bottom line is we should all thank God this trade fell through!!! 2. Soriano signing with the Nationals should shut up the Morse fans that think we can get Morse for a reliever prospect. They just strengthened their bullpen! If I was the Nats, I would just keep Morse for depth. They are obviously going all in to win a championship, and they can always offer Morse the 13 million dollar tender at the end of the year and take the first round pick if he walks. 3. Speaking of the Nats, sure wish we had the #1 overall picks and not missed out on Harper and Strausberg... |
| 223. By: Paul Martin on 01-15-2013 16:48:50 3rd point was a bonus lament, not really a point...lamenting past missed opportunities and mistakes is ever sorry Mariner fan's right.. |
| 224. By: rjfrik on 01-15-2013 17:54:07 We were never in on Harper, so obtaining him is a moot point. But man did the M's screw themselves out of Strasburg. I've never seen anything like it before. All you can do is shake you head and say, wow. |
| 225. By: Edman on 01-15-2013 18:06:01 Well documented that rjfrik believes that the M's should have tried to lose the series with Oakland. Very sporting. |
| 226. By: Panhead55 on 01-15-2013 18:46:01 The Ms did try to lose all three games in their final series with Oakland. Unfortunately they weren't very good at that either. |
| 227. By: dewey on 01-15-2013 20:08:26 Im not getting in the middle of any of these arguments i give my opinion and usually its not popular but those are my thoughts. In all reality we arent anywhere closer 4 years later when Jack took over and again thats my opinion.We have alot of prospects (cough cough) who we all hope become players but in the history of baseball not just Mariner baseball most prospects are bust so cheers and rip away.I know my WAR must be zero with those comments..lol |
| 228. By: maqman on 01-16-2013 11:32:57 Got to respectfully disagree Dewey, if for no other reason than our farm team went from barren to one of the best in the game during Z's term. Additionally, like you I know this is a thinly shared opinion that probably will be shot at by some but I think that the M's will be a winning team this year, over .500, and will not be last in the AL or MLB in offence - with the team as it is now. If they add a nice piece or two they could win in the mid 80's., barring significant DL time for key players. |
| 229. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 12:11:35 I agree with maqman. The difference in the prospects that Seattle has, and those that most other teams bring to the majors is that they have three top of the order first round draft choices in Ackley, Hultzen and Zunino who could see time in the majors this year. It doesn't often happen overnight with prospects. It takes some amount of patience. It is time for Smoak to go to the next level, and I think he's capable. As has been said, if the new diamentions of Safeco had been in place last season, Justin's numbers would have been much better. It was clear to me by several of his statements, that he let it get into his head. The power of doing is mental. And I do think that Saunder's success will catch on with others. One success helps to destroy myths. I doubt they win the Western Division, but they could easily be a +.500 team. |
| 230. By: Paul Martin on 01-16-2013 12:27:59 ESPN Buster Only has a new article online that says what I have been say along: SAVE YOUR BULLETS FOR WHEN STANTON OF MIAMI BECOMES AVAILABLE!!! Buster speculates that teams are saving their prospects for David Price of Tampa Bay or Stanton of Miami, and that Arizona is going to have a hard time getting anything close to what Seattle offered them for Upton. Here is the link. http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog/_/name/olney_buster/id/8849187/giancarlo-stanton-david-price-affecting-trade-market-justin-upton-mlb |
| 231. By: dewey on 01-16-2013 12:51:32 Im not being disrespuctful but i dont figure how they get to 500 this year? Everyone including myself are excited about the fences coming in but remember the other teams didnt have problems hitting the ball out here.So the fences are closer for the other teams also is what im saying and are starters other then the King are just normal and maybe a touch below avg.I get the Lastros have entered the division but Oak,Tex,Angels all play in the west still and honestly they where and are better then us thats why i dont understand how we can be 500? |
| 232. By: Paul Martin on 01-16-2013 13:04:17 @231 I have to agree with Edman on this one. They are going to pick up some easy wins against the Houston Astros, wins they didn't get last year. They also played near .500 a good stretch of the season last year. I think the fences moving in will help, and I like the roster right now better than I did last year, and I know Jack isn't even done yet. Yes, I would have loved to have Hamilton, Swisher, and even Upton if the price wasn't so steep, but the team is improving. I don't think its unrealistic to expect more than we got last year from Gutierrez, Smoak, Montero, and Ackley. Plus we have Morales as a fallback in cases Smoak sucks again. With Morales on the roster, it will be easier to send Smoakto AAA, and leave him down there if they need to. I am not saying they are going to make the playoffs, but .500 is realistic. |
| 233. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 13:08:59 I wouldn't say that Oakland is better than us. They got some outstanding, unexpected, performances last year. I think they will have trouble repeating that in 2013. If they can prove me wrong, so be it. But, there was luck involved last year. Luck is hard to repeat. |
| 234. By: dewey on 01-16-2013 13:15:55 Everyone else plays the Astros also remember.Like i said the other teams didnt have trouble hitting it out in Safeco and they hit also so no advantage there? Ed i agree alot of things went Oaklands way and you call it luck yes that may be part of it but they win one every 4-5 years we havent sniffed one in ten what do we call that? I hope im wrong but we didnt get better in startung pitching i dont believe and that is what it all comes down to in the end. |
| 235. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 13:24:03 We don't call it anything, dewey. And, it's been much longer than 4-5 years. Oakland prior to last season, was in almost as long a drought as Seattle. It was luck and good timing. Jack as time to find starting pitching. |
| 236. By: dewey on 01-16-2013 14:08:18 I hope your right i dont see alot left out there that makes sense maybe Lohse but i dont know if that is who we need at this time.Ok luck and good timing but they beat two real good clubs Texas and Angels talent does that mainly with a little luck you dont win 93 games by being lucky i guess is my disagrement.Im hoping we win 77 this year if not it could get ugly around here. |
| 237. By: Gibbo on 01-16-2013 14:55:35 Loving the optimism here today – couldn’t agree more with many of the comments. If you look at the division its tough on paper, but you have 162 games to play for a reason. I think the Angels are not as strong as last year, and they didn’t even make the playoffs. The A’s will be good again and Texas for me are good but not as good as what they have been. Someone once said “The power of doing is mental”, (credit to Edman), its actually really refreshing to hear that and if we can get early success it could so easily manifest into a surge from them all. Our young guys will have plenty of confidence going into the season, and if Smoak, Ackley or Montero can bust out early it could easily be contagious. I really really love our teams future… there is so much potential and we could easily win 80 something games. Dewey - outside of Lohse there are ther options via trade, Porcello or Capuano would be my two preffered options. I really could see this division outside of Houston, being a really tight race with teams hovering around 88-90 wins getting you the division title... it could be a lot of fun. |
| 238. By: rjfrik on 01-16-2013 14:56:53 With 16-20 games against the Astros and the fences moving in the M's are a .500 team and I would guess they win a few games over .500. It's been documented not just here, but on other M's sites, what the effect of the fences moving in will have on our players. Smoak, Seager, Montero, Ackley and Saunders will all see their average and homeruns go up because of it. Smoak significantly. Then you add in Morales and you actually have some punch in your lineup. This season is set up for a positive growth for the M's which will translate to FA's and trades happening for the M's next off season. Add in the maturation and growth of our high level prospects and the M's have a lot of cards to put toghether to make the best hand. I feel this is the start of a good, long, run, ala what the Rays have done. |
| 239. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 15:39:15 I agree, rjfrik. I think they will be similar to the Rays, with one major exception, they will have the money it takes to retain star players. Many forget how important the farm system is. Without a strong farm system, it is necessary to retain players longer, because you're not back-filled. You need the flexability to let players go to free agency when they get too expensive. I expect that when the M's do return to contention, that keeping the farm system fruitful, is what will keep it competing every season. It's painful getting to that position, but once the Mariners get there, it will be easier to maintain. |
| 240. By: Gibbo on 01-16-2013 15:42:10 Agreed rjfrik - what will be the challenge is if we start losing there will be a lot of told you so comments. But this team is on the right path and we need to keep making smart moves. I still think we need someone that can be a decent leadoff guy as I dont believe Ackley is the answer there. |
| 241. By: Gibbo on 01-16-2013 15:49:04 Edman, or anyone that cares to answer.... As someone that has only been supporting the M's for just over 10 years, when would you say was the last time we had a really strong farm? I know people comment about how highly some guys were rated and then blew out, and we traded away some talent in Choo, Cabrera, Jones etc. but even then nationally were we ever this strong in the farm? I guess I measure the strength as not just a great top 5 but some very talented depth. All those years of losing in the 80's must of meant we had some consistently high draft picks. |
| 242. By: Gibbo on 01-16-2013 16:02:34 Wow - Jaso for Morse, doesnt sound great on the surface |
| 243. By: davelee99 on 01-16-2013 16:15:56 It sounds horrible on every level... |
| 244. By: StandinPat on 01-16-2013 16:18:13 Officially on the fire Jack Z bandwagon. That trade is inexcusable. |
| 245. By: slamcactus on 01-16-2013 16:21:36 Ugghh. Over/under for the fewest number of pitches for a CG against the Ms this season? I'll take the under at 90. |
| 246. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 16:41:34 IMO, the M's have never had a stronger farm system. The last time the M's had what I would consider a strong farm system, was the early 90's. They were able to draft Arod to supplement Griffey, which if you think about it, would be like drafting both Trout and Harper. Previous to what we have now, the M's farm system reached its next highet ratings when it has Ryan Anderson, Clint Nageotte and Rhett Johnson, that all failed for various reasons. But, other than Anderson, none were near the arms we have now in Hultzen, Walder and Paxton. |
| 247. By: StandinPat on 01-16-2013 17:15:43 Walder is prob my fave Ms prospect right now |
| 248. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 17:23:39 LOL.....yeah, that Walder kid is something special. I majored in typonese. |
| 249. By: Gibbo on 01-16-2013 17:32:24 I know a little about the Ryan Anderson, Clint Nageotte and Rhett Johnson days and they flamed out like you say, but I guess like you say those 3 dont comapre as well to what the current 3, it really does say a lot for the path we are on. |
| 250. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 18:01:03 It also didn't help that Seattle lost three first round draft picks in 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004. |
| 251. By: Edman on 01-16-2013 18:01:50 oops, that's four. I'm gonna stop typing. |
| 252. By: Gibbo on 01-16-2013 18:56:48 Shit, 4, thats a lot of potentail good players gone and explains another reason we were so weak, bad trades and draft picks gone |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
| Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |