| By Chris Crawford |  | By 12-28-2009 |
As Jason mentioned, there's a pretty big lull for the holidays. From the fan perspective, a lull isn't too big of deal when you acquire a 5 WAR starter, get rid of something useless for something useful (Silva, Bradley) and make a..oh, lets call it controversial trade for a set-up man and toolsy prospect. But at the heart of it all we're still fans, and we will seemingly always demand action.
There are still a lot of pieces on the market, which is somewhat of a rarity as most of the big fish are gone before the new year. And despite the signing of Chone Figgins in addition to the Bradley and Lee deals, the M's still have some money to play with.
Here's a list of some of the more prominent names out there -- not necessarily a list of who they're interested in.
SP
Joel Piniero
Erik Bedard
Ben Sheets
Jon Garland
Aroldis Chapman
Doug Davis
Jarrod Washburn
John Smoltz
Pedro Martinez
1B/DH/LF
Jim Thome
Carlos Delgado
Adam Laroche
Russell Branyan
Vlad Guerrero
Jermaine Dye
Jason Bay
Matt Holliday
Xavier Nady
2B/3B
Adrian Beltre
Felipe Lopez
Miguel Tejada
Orlando Hudson
Juan Uribe
SS/CF/RF/RP
No one worth mentioning cause the M's aren't signing anyone at this position. In fact, I tried to make a list and Jason threatened to make me write a report on the chalk they use for the foul lines. Okay, not really. He threatened to beat me up.
So what would YOU guys like to see happen?
Also, below is a table of salaries for the M's projected 25-man roster. It does not include anyone not already with the club, and the arbitration eligibles' salaries are estimated slightly on the high side.
| Seattle Mariners Projected Roster, Financial Commitments | |||||||||||||||||||
| Pos. | Player | 2010 (Est.) Salary | Total | ||||||||||||||||
| SP | Felix Hernandez | $9.0 | 9.0 | 2011 | |||||||||||||||
| SP | Cliff Lee | $9.0 | 18.0 | 2010 | |||||||||||||||
| SP | Ryan Rowland-Smith | $600k | 18.6 | 2014 | |||||||||||||||
| SP | Ian Snell | $4.25 | 22.85 | - | |||||||||||||||
| SP | Jason Vargas | $500k | 23.35 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | Rotation Total | 23.35 | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| RP | David Aardsma | $2.0 | 25.35 | - | |||||||||||||||
| RP | Mark Lowe | $1.25 | 26.6 | - | |||||||||||||||
| RP | Brandon League | $1.25 | 27.85 | - | |||||||||||||||
| RP | Shawn Kelley | $500k | 28.35 | - | |||||||||||||||
| RP | Sean White | $550k | 28.900 | - | |||||||||||||||
| RP | Doug Fister | $400k | 29.3 | - | |||||||||||||||
| RP | Garret Olson | $500k | 29.8 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | Bullpen Total | 6.450 | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| IF | Jack Wilson | $5.0 | 34.8 | - | |||||||||||||||
| IF | Jose Lopez | $2.3 | 37.1 | - | |||||||||||||||
| IF | Chone Figgins | $8.0 | 45.1 | - | |||||||||||||||
| IF | Jack Hannahan | $500k | 45.7 | - | |||||||||||||||
| UT | Bill Hall | $8.4 | 54.1 | - | |||||||||||||||
| IF | Mike Carp | $400k | 54.5 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | Infield Total | 24.6 | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| OF | Franklin Gutierrez | $2.0 | 56.5 | - | |||||||||||||||
| OF | Michael Saunders | $400k | 56.9 | - | |||||||||||||||
| OF | Milton Bradley | $9.0 | 66.9 | - | |||||||||||||||
| OF | Ryan Langerhans | $525k | 66.425 | - | |||||||||||||||
| OF | Ichiro Suzuki | $17.0 | 83.425 | - | |||||||||||||||
| DH | Ken Griffey, Jr. | $2.35 | 85.775 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | Outfield/DH Total | 31.275 | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| C | Rob Johnson | $500k | 86.275 | - | |||||||||||||||
| C | Adam Moore | $400k | 86.675 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| $$ | Carlos Silva | $5.5 | 92.175 | ||||||||||||||||
| $$ | Yuniesky Betancourt | $1.0 | 93.175 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| $$ | Bill Hall (from Mil) | -$7.15* | 86.025 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | - | *May vary | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| -- | Grand Total | - | $86.025 | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | - | - | |||||||||||||||
what\'s-still-out-there
Comments
The following 145 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: shortstop9 on 12-28-2009 20:03:07 If we just go the FA route I think if we could pickup Garland(perfect #3),LaRoche,and Felipe Lopez we would be set.We could move J. Lopez if needed,but he could DH/1B/2B/3B and get at bats. F.Lopez could play 2B and play SS when Wilson is out. I think LF is O.K. with Bradley/Langerhans/Hall |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-28-2009 20:26:34 What about Garland tells you he's a No. 3? He's never been a No. 3. Wasn't one last year. Is clearly declining, has never missed bats, doesn't get enough ground balls to make up for it... |
| 3. By: JohnMcD on 12-28-2009 20:28:59 How much do they have to spend? I would like us to go after a SP, 1B, and possibly a 2B in that order. I would like Sheets and Braynan, but it sounds like Sheets wants a lot of money. Somewhere in the 12 million range, could be wrong? |
| 4. By: Durian on 12-28-2009 20:42:45 What is the Mariners 2010 budget? Do we around $15mil to spend? |
| 5. By: The Great Pumpkin on 12-28-2009 21:01:33 Sheets is my #1 target... I just keep imagining us in the playoffs, and our rotation is Felix, Lee, and Sheets... That would be awesome!! |
| 6. By: Rudolf on 12-28-2009 21:09:36 Absolutely not on Garland! That guy is batting practice. What kind of prospects were the Reds seeking from the Dodgers in the possible Aaron Harang trade. If the Reds will cover some of his salary and expect little in trade return, perhaps he could be fit better than all the free-agents not named Sheets. |
| 7. By: jkcmason on 12-28-2009 21:17:06 I think that we could use some help at SP, 1B and 2B. I would like to see SP filled with Ben Sheets as he is clearly the most dominant pitcher available. He shouldn't command as much money as Harden becuase he was out for all of last season. I would think that we could agree at around $7mil. I have always been a fan of Felipe Lopez. I don't think that he will repeat his stats from last year, but I do think that he will be just as valuable at the plate as Jose and way more valuable in the field. Not to mention that his versatility would give us another option at SS if Jack Wilson was to get hurt again. Another solid year would likely make him a type A free agent, and we could offer him Arbitration because he would shine over next years class of free Agents at 2nd base. I am not really happy with the Free Agents at 1B that are available. I am hoping that we can try to swing a three way deal sending a different outfielder to the Yankees and acquiring Nick Swisher. I would have to laugh a little bit if we put out a lineup with 4 switch hitters. |
| 8. By: DRWheelock on 12-28-2009 21:33:13 Thanks for the detailed salary list! I have been telling everyone that we have approximately $20M left to spend after arb figures are completed...but some still end up disputing that. NICE JOB Chris! We REALLY need a decent LHP bullpen arm like Daren Oliver. I wanted him SOOOO badly. I can bare to watch Olson in the bullpen, or Luke French either. Especially when Fields majorly impressed in the Winter leagues. Sheets is dreaming if he think he's getting anywhere near $12M, and hasn't pitched in 1.5 years. Something else is that I heard last week that he WONT let anyone see him workout, AND he won't allow any medical records to be reviewed. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME?! NO WAY will a team give him a contract unless he goes through a complete physical, medical records reviewed, and they see him throw. I remember last offseason he was trying hard to land a 1 year contract in the $12M range...and pushing really hard to get it, and then all of a sudden when nobody would give it to him it was announced that he would need surgery. Even though I'd LOVE to have Sheets, I really didn't like how he was trying to suck a team into giving him a contract. I really felt that he knew all along that he was going to need surgery. Harden pitched last year and landed a $7.5M + incentives with Texas (a team that can't seem to attract SPs). I see a similar contract for Sheets, but would be VERY worried about giving him even a $7.5M base. I honestly would prefer to run with Bedard on a minor league deal, with a "small" base once he hits the MLB roster, with incentives every 50 innings pitched. Here's what I would do with those available free agents, and based upon what I've been hearing they will end up going for in January...Sign: 1) Beltre $8M/year (3 years $24M). Move Figgins to 2B and possibly use Lopez in a trading package for a really awesome LHP arm for the bullpen. 2) Branyan $3M + $2M incentives for plate appearances (1 year of course) 3) Bedard (sign to a minor league deal with $2M base if he makes the team, and incentives every 50 innings) 4) Trade Lopez/Lowe/Kelley/Aarsdma/Saunders/+ for Gonazalez for 1B (I know JAC doesn't think we have what it takes to land AG though). But we now have Fields that showed a great performance in Winter league play, and League (after the Morrow trade), and I personally think Chad Cordero will be ready this year. |
| 9. By: Uncle Al on 12-28-2009 21:33:44 There are some errors in the running totals and Hall is the biggest one by about $3M. Also need to add in $2.7M for Prorated Bonuses and $3.75M for the contingency Fund. They are committed for $91.2M in their current budget. It kind of looks like if they want to upgrade at 1B and LF plus add another SP, they will need to increase the amount of this years budget from last years. Even if they get Branyan and Sheets for just under $10M, where do they get a LF for minimum? |
| 10. By: DRWheelock on 12-28-2009 21:34:16 Oops I ment to say: " I CAN'T bare to watch Olson in the bullpen, or Luke French" |
| 11. By: DRWheelock on 12-28-2009 21:44:23 I don't agree on Hall Uncle Al. Brewers are paying $7.15M of Halls $8.4M, so Seattle's portion of Halls 2010 salary is right under $1.3M. http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/seattle-mariners.html And with the Langerhans signing, NO WAY will Seattle go and acquire a LFer. Some will dispute this, but I think they will run with Bradley in LF, with Langerhans as a 7th inning replacement for game ending D. I can see them grabbing VLAD as a DH, and a "backup" to LF "if" Bradley ends up getting hurt. Olney was projecting VLAD to go for around $2M on a 1 year deal in late January. What a DH Platoon with Griffey! And you can play them both in LF if we are in a pinch with Bradley out for a few weeks. Also I think Seattle would be willing to extend payroll "up to" the 2008 amount of $117.5M "if" the right guy came along (Adrian Gonzalez mid season acquisition). |
| 12. By: frontstreetfan on 12-28-2009 21:49:40 Jason, If the Mariners were to budget 100 million for 2010 they would likely hold 3-5 million for contingencies. Leaving approx 15-16 million. That would appear to be able to return two players either by FA or via trade. Or one big move. Is there a AL West coast equivalent Javier Vasquez trade matchup and is the 100 million figure a reasonable budget est? |
| 13. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-28-2009 22:08:19 Guys, first of all -- Roster updated to reflect the most updated available salaries and tallies, with the exception of Brandon League. His is about half what's reflected above. Second, I included the Bill Hall info... but remember, the 7.15 mil total is conditional. He has to play a lot for them to get most or all of that. And if he plays a lot, it's probably not a good thing for the M's. Third, the roster above is just going off what's available now. I chose Vargas over French, just for the hell of it. It's just a table to show where the money is allocated, not to show what the roster is and how good it might be as is. Al, I have the numbers correct. The contingency fund isn't an actual slot of money -- it's payroll money UNSPENT. The 87.025 million is correct, minus about a million for the Brandon League adjustment, and accounts for all 2010 financial commitments and adjustments, including Betancourt, Silva, and Hall's money coming in from Milwaukee, which could lower from 7.15 depending on the playing time. There is no bonus money missing, either. None of the multi-year contracts that guarantee money have bonuses due in 2010. Ichiro's $5 million bonus paid out $2 mil in 2007 and 2008, $1 million in 2009. Griffey's bonuses have yet to be determined, same as any player with incentives -- that's part of a bonus contingency fund that has zilch to do with the Opening Day payroll. Bradley's signing bonus went 2 in '09, 2 in '11. Lee's and Hall's bonuses are already paid up through 2009, and Figgins gets all of his $2 mil bonus in 2013. Ackley's bonus doesn't count, because he's not on the 25-man. So while they are certainly paying him, and that money counts toward 40-man payrolls, for luxury tax purposes, which is generally the number clubs use, it's 25-man only. If you include anyone on the 40-man, why not include anyone period, such as international signings? Lastly, DRWheelock, Adrian Gonzalez is making less than Jack Wilson in 2010. No need to take the budget to $117.5m or anywhere near if they wanted to add Gonzalez. And the pipe dream of Adrian Gonzalez really needs to die. |
| 14. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-28-2009 22:28:23 Again, the contingency fund is for mid-season trades, not winter free agent signings. So if we're talking about Opening Day payroll and what the roster might look like, that fund is NOT AVAILABLE. It's just not. |
| 15. By: Uncle Al on 12-28-2009 22:38:55 DRWheelock The running total in the chart has now been corrected for Hall and so has the final total. I never said anything was wrong with the net effect of Halls contract. It is correct. Another problem is that any contract for more than one year will increase the 2011 budget which already stands at $94M and doesn't have anything for another SP or Lee if they resign him and no one for 1B or LF. |
| 16. By: Uncle Al on 12-28-2009 23:30:27 Jason I totally agree your current figure of $86M as I have a figure of $85M and didn't include Betancourt. I also agree with what you say about the Contingency Fund and it takes care of the difference in salary when a minor leaguer is called up. It is a part of the final annual budget just as the Prorated Bonuses are. I have Ichiro at $1M, Figgins at $500K, and Ackley at $1.2M only because he was signed to a ML contract. I do see your point about ignoring it for this year but it may not apply next year if he is on the 25 man roster. At least I have it in a place where I can't forget about it and it is a minor item on an annual basis. |
| 17. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 00:46:43 Well ... The list clearly shows that there is a good amount of money left to be spent for this season. It also in my opinion goes to show that I'd expect most signings to be of a short-term nature given that I do expect that the Mariners will do their best to break the bank for the top of the rotation starters beyond 2010 (it's the only way to compete at the top level). The problem on the starting pitching market is that in my opinion, the Mariners really do need an established, stable #3 starter. I tend to think highly of both Rowland-Smith and Snell. Problem is in my opinion is that RRS has never pitched the kind of big innings that he'd be required at the #3 level and that while Snell has an opportunity to be very, very good, he can also fall off the deep end. If either of them fail to perform, then you are in a situation where you are putting a couple of young kids in the rotation and in my opinion threatening the ability to make the playoffs. Having 2 top dogs provides a great insurance policy and is great for the playoffs. But you can't assume that 2 top pitchers are going to get you to the playoffs. You do have to surround them with quality at the 3-5 spots in the rotation. I'm not sure that there is anybody that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Piniero might be the one guy that seems like the most reliable - but I wouldn't pay the money that he's going to command. Sheets has tremendous upside but comes with a ton of risk - and the money will be pricey. I'd be ok with Washburn if he was interested and provided that there was a clear reason as to why he fell off the cliff after the trade. The thought of Garland or Davis doesn't do a lot for me. Too much money for production that I might be able to get from within the system. And more importantly, I'm not feeling good running them out there in October. There are some nice names out there as possible 1B/LF/DH options. I love the idea of Vlad as the DH. His power may not be what it used to be. But he still can rake. He can still command respect in the middle of an order. And if the rumors are that he's going to be a 1 year for $2 million signing ... then I'd be very proactive and overspend to get him into the fold. And for the record, I wouldn't ask him to play the field at all. He wasn't great last year. But he still hit .295. And I don't worry about him being able to swing a bat. The wheels are gone. Perhaps some pop is gone. But he can still rake. Note that he hit .378 in the playoffs. If you look at his monthly splits last year, it is clear that he was much, much better once he got his knees in better shape. Having him play 5 out of 7 days and give the other 2 days to Griffey makes sense to me. And, the presence of both of them will give a quality bat off the bench - which will be needed given some of the holes in the lineup. Jermaine Dye would interest me depending on how much money he is asking for. Can he play 1B at all? The presence of Bradley though makes a LF acquisition questionable to me at this point. Branyan would be a nice addition if he's interested in coming back. How is his back? Can he stay healthy? What insurance are we going to have at 1B if/when his back acts up. Can we play him as an everyday player or are we going to be looking at a 4 or 5 out of 7 day kind of player? I think if I'm Jackie Z and I've got $15-$20 million left to spend, I'm going to look at adding Piniero/Sheets, Vlad, and Branyan. I'm going to hang on to Lopez unless I can somehow bring back Beltre on the cheap - but I really doubt that I could. I don't think that there is interest on both sides - we may have more interest than what Beltre has. That's not to say that I wouldn't love to have Beltre back and in all honesty I'd rather bring Beltre back at 3B, have Figgins play 1B, and either move Lopez via trade for a starting pitcher or to 1B. That'd leave my rotation as follows: Felix, Lee, Piniero/Sheets/or traded starter via trade, RRS, Snell. My Lineup would be (the realistic scenario): Ichiro, RF Figgins, 3B Bradley, LF Vlad Guerrero, DH Branyan, 1B Gutierrez, CF Lopez, 2B Moore/Johnson/other catcher, C Wilson, SS All of a sudden, that looks like a reasonable lineup ... and when you factor in the positional versatility of a guy like Bill Hall, the defense of a guy like Langerhans, etc., you do have a bit of an insurance in case you have injuries, etc. Further, it gives the flexibility to start guys like Saunders and Tui in the minor league system to allow them the opportunity to further develop and refine their game to be major league ready - really, neither of them are at this point (i.e. Saunders' inability to hit lefties really makes him a difficult sell in LF right now). |
| 18. By: Lonnie on 12-29-2009 00:49:15 Not to quibble, but $5M of Ichiro's salary is defered and does not count against the 2010 payroll. Also, someone is awfully generous with someone else's money... :) Lonnie |
| 19. By: DRWheelock on 12-29-2009 01:18:31 Al, according to COTS Seattle has $46.875 committed to 2011 contracts. Now that does NOT take into consideration the Figgins signing, the $3M extra next year for Bradley, and a few other little odds and ends. I don't know where you are getting the $94M "already" allocated to the 2011 payroll. http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ew-fwu2XT3cpPRtt9qIGw |
| 20. By: shortstop9 on 12-29-2009 01:28:13 Sheets is not going to come cheap.He is a huge ? not pitching at all last year.I think counting on Branyan to play 1st is a stretch with his back.I think DH we may be set with Griffey and Bradley Lopez. How about Washburn and LaRoche and Tejada at 3B ? Very flexible lineup. Tejada can play SS for 12-15 games.Lots of combinations Ichiro-RF Figgins-2B Bradley-LF Tejada-3B LaRoche-1B Lopez-DH Guttierez-CF Moore-C Wilson-SS |
| 21. By: Uncle Al on 12-29-2009 02:30:38 DRWheelock you just gave me the same argument that someone else did a few days ago. This is a working budget and you have to include guys like Moore and Arbi players for anything to make any sense at all. COTS is useless for doing anything other than giving a signed contract figure. They aren't just going to walk away from Hernandez, Gutierrez, Lowe, League, Aardsma, Rowland-Smith, or anybody else. These guys are committed as of now, or need to be traded and replaced or lose all their value. When the M's acquired Lee, it put them in a position to be able to win this year and they are going to go for it. If Lee doesn't resign for next year or Hernandez doesn't extend, everything will need to change and they must be a little flexible to do that. The $94M is the starting point and already gone on next years budget before trades, resigning Lee or another SP, and adding at 1B and LF. Lopez and Snell both have club options and along with Bradley would be the main trade targets followed by probably Aardsma and Lowe. |
| 22. By: frontstreetfan on 12-29-2009 08:43:22 If Branyan can be moved to 1st base with limited experience at the position and do well and we have M. Carp with below avg defense at 1st base then wouldn't Vlad Guerrero have a reasonable shot at playing a decent 1st base and providing an offensive punch for the Mariners at a reasonable price? |
| 23. By: jgstecker on 12-29-2009 08:52:38 Give me Sheets and Branyan and I'll be happy. I'm not horribly worried about Saunders in LF or Lopez at 2B. Bradley and Griffey have all the DH ABs accounted for. Doug Davis would be Plan B if he comes cheap enough. I think Davis could be effective in Seattle, similar to Washburn last year. He's not the ideal, but he's the best bet for success of what's left. If I had any assurance of Delgado's health, I'd take him over Branyan. Laroche would be okay too, as long as his price drops to a reasonable amount over 1-2 years. |
| 24. By: mymrbig on 12-29-2009 10:02:26 Even if people refuse to give up on the Adrian Gonzalez trade proposals, can you at least stop including Jose Lopez in the proposals? I mean seriously, if the Padres are looking to cut some salary and pick up a windfall of prospects, how does Jose Lopez fit into the picture? He doesn't. So if you are going to include crazy trade proposals, then at least leave Lopez out of it. Oh yeah, and we are almost to the point where Ackley can be included as a PTBN. That would certainly make it more conceivable to go after Adrian, so if you are going to throw out more proposals, include the idea of waiting until February, then including Ackley as a PTBN. |
| 25. By: mymrbig on 12-29-2009 10:10:44 I just don't trust back injuries for power hitters, so give me Delgado over Branyan. And maybe LaRoche over Branyan if LaRoche ever wakes up and realizes he isn't getting the kind of contract he is asking for. I don't love LaRoche, but he is extremely consistent. I think most people would love Sheets, but JAC has always seemed pretty skeptical of the fit. So if we are crossing him off the list, I think I prefer Randy Johnson (not even on the list? Come on!). Still misses quite a few bats, ridiculously bad luck last year on fly balls (the anti-Aardsma). RJ had a 19.2% HR/FB while Aardsma was 4.2%, and that is a stat that isn't really skill-dependent. Anyway, if the M's feel OK about RJ's shoulder, I think he has more upside than Washburn, Garland, Davis, and many others, despite his age. He'd probably be cheaper than all those guys too. |
| 26. By: Willmore on 12-29-2009 10:22:02 Vote for Pedro/Sheets on 1yr deal Vlad on 1yr deal for DH. Move Bradley to 1st, keep Saunders in Left. Griffey gets a ceremonial start for Saturday/Sunday home games. The rest of the time he's the DT. Vargas to bullpen, Olson to Tacoma. PS: Yes, there is a certain part of me that wants Bradley at 1st, just to see how many times he blows up on close plays that go against us. |
| 27. By: shortstop9 on 12-29-2009 10:53:56 We are not going to sign Guerrero.There is no way you can have a bench full of DH type of players. We have Griffey and Bradley so DH is done.Guerrero played 2 games in the outfield last season and has never played 1B.We lost any use for him when we signed Bradley.The only real 1B left is LaRoche in FA. |
| 28. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 11:17:09 Why is everybody so quick to put Bradley at DH? He's still capable of playing OF - definitely capable of playing out there 120-130 games per year. The remaining portion of the games gives Hall and/or Langerhans some playing time out there. IF, and this is clearly a big IF, Delgado is healthy, I think I'd take him over Branyan at first every day of the week. Even a bad year by Delgado's standards should out produce Branyan in my opinion. Many may disagree with me, but I think that if you have the opportunity to get Vlad to be your DH, you have to make the move to do that. He's too good with too much of an upside to push that chance away. There's been a lot of talk about how the Mariners don't have a lineup that is league average and/or capable of performing if they do get to the big stage. But if they run out the following lineup, that's a lineup that I'm not entirely sure takes a back seat to many teams, and definitely isn't far enough behind a lineup produced by the Yankees and Red Sox that makes me think that we're at a competitive disadvantage. The following looks good to me: Ichiro Figgins Bradley Vlad Branyan/Delgado Gutierrez Lopez Moore/Johnson Wilson I'd like to think that that's a lineup that can produce 750-800 runs. It's a lineup with the right amount of power, speed, presence, and situational hitting behind it. Moreover, it's a team that is constructed that doesn't sacrifice a lot of defense at the expense of hitting. And as a complete aside, just a random pet peeve ... when people talk about would you rather have a guy like Felipe Lopez or Jose Lopez, I can understand the theory. But you can't just look at those kind of things in a vacuum. You have to look at those things in the context of where they are going to be playing in your lineup. If I'm in need of a front of the lineup bat, or have enough depth in the middle of the order that I can afford to hit Felipe Lopez, or someone else for that matter in the #9 spot to turn the lineup over, then he very well may be a better option than Jose Lopez all things considered. But when you are struggling for run producing bats in the middle of the order and need some power in your lineup, then Jose Lopez is a better fit for your team because he has more of a presence at the plate in that regard. I don't buy that RBIs completely come as a result of where you hit in the order and are pure chance more than anything else. Surely, the runners that get on in front of you provide you with the opportunities. But it's what you do with those opportunities and if you are able to get one runner in, multiple runners in, etc. that often matters. How many remember last year the argument that Endy Chavez was more valuable than Griffey? Perhaps if the role that each of them were going to play was the same then some of that analysis mattered. But they weren't. I don't care if Griffey hit .220, .180, or .260, the fact is that if you put him in the middle of the order pitchers would at least pay attention and they are at least going to pitch carefully knowing what kind of damage may result if they make a mistake. Those are more challenging pitches than to a guy like Endy Chavez who isn't going to threaten a pitcher with a lot of extra base potential and would be viewed as being laughable if he was hitting in the middle of an order. I'm a big believer in having an offense that is slotted correctly. A great example of that has been Adrian Beltre the last few years. As a player, I really like Beltre. Good glove and above average bat for the position. He's not a 40+ HR guy at the position. He's a 25-30 HR guy with the potential for 100 RBI's that is going to play Gold Glove caliber 3rd base and hit in the .270 range. I can live with that guy on my team. He's not a 3 hitter. He's not a 4 hitter. He's a marginal 5 hitter. He's ideally a 6 hitter. If he's your 3 or 4 hitter, I'd say that you most likely don't have too good of a team. If he's your 5 hitter, it's questionable. If he's your 6 hitter, you've got a pretty good team. So, when you look at the lineup above, and think about how it is constructed, you get the idea of how just a few more shrewd moves of some high caliber veteran guys, and in particular some veterans with something to prove, slots the lineup correctly. We all like to rag on Jose Lopez for this and that. And he's certainly not a #3 hitter in the lineup. But if he's hitting #7 for you, well, how many lineups are you going to find a guy capable of hitting 25-30 HRs and driving in upwards of 90 in that spot in the order? Some of the warts that are complained about currently are mitigated there. The above lineup provides great balance. The first 3 in the order all get on base with high frequency. If right, Bradley is a good option as a #3 hitter due to his ability to take pitches, slug at a high rate, and to provide a number of quality at bats. If you have Vlad and Delgado/Branyan hitting in the middle of the order, you have proven run producers (definitely true with Vlad and Delgado) while also providing power potential. Gutierrez hitting 6th provides a bit of speed/power combo for a guy that is an emerging power bat who has a potential for a continued breakout in '10. Lopez is a solid option hitting 7th. The catcher position will be in flux for most of the year hitting 8th - but provides for the opportunity to get soem ABs with opportunities for success and perhaps more importantly, depending on how many catchers are carried, allows for pinch hitting opportunities in late game situations. And, with Wilson hitting 9th, you have a guy that can handle the bat and has historically hit in the .270+ range. That lineup is properly slotted. |
| 29. By: Willmore on 12-29-2009 11:28:26 Personally, I put Bradley anywhere but LF because I still have faith that Saunders can break out this year. If by mid-season it hasn't happened, then sure, move Bradley to LF, trade for a DH and banish Saunders back down. And I have no problem with 2 DH types on the bench. We have enough flexibility elsewhere and in the minors to compensate in case of injury, and I'm not a believer in a need to rotate players for rest very often. Ichiro seems to manage just fine without, and it's not like we have a geriatric squad. |
| 30. By: mykillmagnum on 12-29-2009 11:51:11 Jason, What's the story on chapman? They made such a huge deal about who's going to sign him, so why hasn't he signed yet? Are the mariners even in play for him? |
| 31. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 12:10:21 Again I ask ... why is everybody so quick to banish Bradley to DH? He signed with a NL team last offseason ... he's 32 years old in March ... he played the most games and innings in his career in the field last season. I'm all for rotating him into the DH spot from time to time. I'm all for giving him some rest to keep him healthy - which has been a big issue with him throughout his career - even in '08 with Texas when he DH'ed a lot. I'm all for season if he's willing to work in some at 1B a bit. But to banish him to DH right away so that you can see if Saunders is ready? I don't get that. If you do that, the lineup isn't slotted correctly. You are then running the risk of having a team that is average at best offensively and will definitely need to pitch at or near the top of the league to win the West. It's a team that may be light in its ability to contend if it gets to October. The margin for error for the team is small then. If Saunders doesn't work, then you are now moving Bradley to LF and relying on Griffey as the DH. Either that or you are using a ton of prospects in system for a July trade OR you may be rushing Ackley to the bigs before he is ready and/or forced to abandon/delay the idea of him playing 2B in order to replace Lopez in '11. Saunders is 24 years old ... that's not "old" for AAA level. He's already had a successful season there with a callup for a chance to see if he's ready for the bigs. Based on his sample size, he's not ready. He struck out 40 times in 122 ABs - that's not good. That tells me that he's routinely being overmatched by major league pitching and that there are enough flaws in his ability to exploit - and MLB pitchers will exploit those weaknesses. He had 55 ABs versus left-handed pitchers and struck out 24 times without having a single walk. That's not ready. Not even close. He'd be well served by going down to Tacoma, addressing the areas of weakness in his swing, and paying particular attention to improving against left-handed pitching. If he does those things, then there's a good chance IMO that he'll find a place on the major league roster and that he may find himself having the opportunity to earn the job in '11. But he's not ready to be handed the job in '10 ... and I hate to break it to people, but Langerhans is not a starter - great extra OF ... horrible starter - particularly if you harbor illusions of being a team capable of October glory. |
| 32. By: Edman on 12-29-2009 12:28:01 Griffey is paid too much not to be the DH. He won't be an occasional pinch-hitter. Dream all you want, but there is no way they're going to give Griffey any less than 300 AB, barring injury. |
| 33. By: Willmore on 12-29-2009 13:09:18 2.35 mil is too much? They paid Silva 11 mil NOT to play. |
| 34. By: universalguru on 12-29-2009 13:20:16 Looks like the Mets signed Bay... so we can finally end any conversation of him coming to Seattle. I'm sure Bay had significantly more interest than the M'jason, a. Jason, after adding a 1b and perhaps SP, will we be done with upgrading the offense until perhaps part-way through the season? |
| 35. By: Edman on 12-29-2009 13:29:09 Willmore.....they didn't resign Silva, they resigned Griffey. Simple math.....if they had no intention of playing him, they wouldn't have resigned him. There is a huge difference there. |
| 36. By: safecochatter on 12-29-2009 14:20:08 one correction...M's will sell over 10 million in Griffey merchandise over the 2010 season. who's paying who? m's will actually make money on griffey. |
| 37. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 14:34:48 "Again I ask ... why is everybody so quick to banish Bradley to DH?" Because Bradley isn't exactly the picture of health. I don't think its a coincidence that his power numbers were considerably better in a year where he was dh'ing vs one in which he was asked to play the field every day. Leg injuries sap power, so keeping his legs fresh would behoove the M's. Not saying he'll never see the field, but I don't see him starting 120+ games in LF. "He'd be well served by going down to Tacoma, addressing the areas of weakness in his swing" He did that. Both with the big league club and in winter ball. Not sure if his problems are completely solved, but if we shouldn't be banishing Bradley to DH, then we certainly shouldn't be relegating Saunders to Tacoma before even seeing him in ST. |
| 38. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 14:36:27 "Again I ask ... why is everybody so quick to banish Bradley to DH?" Because Bradley isn't exactly the picture of health. I don't think its a coincidence that his power numbers were considerably better in a year where he was dh'ing vs one in which he was asked to play the field every day. Leg injuries sap power, so keeping his legs fresh would behoove the M's. Not saying he'll never see the field, but I don't see him starting 120+ games in LF. "He'd be well served by going down to Tacoma, addressing the areas of weakness in his swing" He did that. Both with the big league club and in winter ball. Not sure if his problems are completely solved, but if we shouldn't be banishing Bradley to DH, then we certainly shouldn't be relegating Saunders to Tacoma before even seeing him in ST. |
| 39. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 15:01:43 If you are telling me that my options are Saunders in LF and Bradley at DH or I can roll the dice and put Bradley in LF, Vlad at DH, and then have Saunders as a backup plan at LF ... I'm going to roll the dice. Ultimately, the goals are to 1) win the division and 2) win in October. It's a lot easier to upgrade the team right now in free agency where an acquisition doesn't cost anything other than $$$ ... what is the cost if you get to July and realize you need an upgrade? And like I said earlier, I'm not saying that Saunders can't be an answer in LF. But right now, I can't sit here and say that anybody should feel comfortable giving him the LF job and expecting him to get 400+ ABs. If he goes down to AAA, tears it up and improves on the areas where he needs improvement to be a more complete major league hitter, then great. But since this team has expectations of contending in 2010, you can't have a guy learning his craft at the major league level. With respect to Griffey, again, you can't expect him to be a significant portion of the team. I'd love for him to be the player that can hit .260 with 25 HRs in 400+ ABs. But you can't expect that right now. He will have a role on this team. I do expect him to play 2-3 days per week as it is. I do expect him to pinch hit in situations. I expect he'll get 200-300 ABs. As I said with Saunders, I don't think that you can afford to consider yourself a contender in 2010 if you are expecting Griffey to be a difference maker for you. If he is a difference maker, then that's great. But you can't expect it. |
| 40. By: chrisd on 12-29-2009 15:09:24 "But since this team has expectations of contending in 2010, you can't have a guy learning his craft at the major league level." You must give Saunders the opportunity to learn to hit ML pitching just as A-Rod, Adam Jones, Clement, and many others needed that time. Saunders cannot learn that in Tacoma. He must be given the time to struggle at the ML level, it is normal. |
| 41. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 15:23:38 Again, Bradley has hit much better as a DH than as a LF, couple that with the fact that Saunders is a much better defender than Bradley and Vlad's bat has to be better than Saunder's + the defensive difference between Saunders and Bradley + the Offensive difference between Bradley the DH and the LF. I don't think that Vlad the DH is the slam dunk upgrade you are making it out to be. |
| 42. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 15:24:57 Great examples that you gave: A-Rod got 17 games in 1994 at the age of 19 ... needed more seasoning and went back to the minors. He got 142 more at-bats in 1995 at the age of 19/20. He continued applying his trade primarily in the minors getting ABs. He was given the job in 1996 and originally hit 9th in the order before moving up to 2nd in the order hitting in front of Griffey and Edgar (i.e. he was able to see some pretty good pitches). Two other points to keep in mind here regarding A-Rod. One, you are talking about one of the best offensive players to ever play the game - Saunders is nowhere close to this caliber. Second, A-Rod replaced Luis Sojo at SS in 1996 ... the expectation was that he would definitely be able to replicate what Sojo was able to do. In the case with Saunders, if the hypothetical situation is that if he gets more seasoning, then the Mariners will have Bradley in LF and Vlad at DH, essentially what you'd be saying is that if Saunders was to start in LF and Bradley at DH that you expect Saunders to product at a comparable level to Vlad next year. Adam Jones is another completely different example in my opinion. He got 65 ABs in 2007 at the age of 22 when it was pretty clear that he was done with the AAA level - and Saunders did not put up the numbers that Jones did. He was traded and in 2008 put up 132 games and 477 ABs for a team that had no expectation of contending. In other words, they could afford to allow him to take his lumps in the short-term for a long-term benefit. I know that many love to criticize getting rid of Jones and definitely it hurts. But keep in mind that if the Mariners had the expectation of contending, having a young kid break in and be counted on to be a significant producer is a tough proposition. It's one thing if you break a kid in and have him hit towards the bottom third of the order. It's another thing if you really need that position to produce at a higher level than that. And, for as good as Jones was last year, his numbers are relatively similar to that of Franklin Gutierrez. Jeff Clement has yet to establish himself as a major league caliber player. He was unable to even earn September playing time with a down and out Pirate team after the trade last year. He got 203 ABs in 2008 and had 63 Ks. There's no certainty that Clement will ever get that chance and perhaps there is a reason for that. I'm not saying that Saunders shouldn't be given an opportunity at the MLB level. What I am saying is that he shouldn't be counted on to be a middle of the order kind of producer that this team needs. I'd much rather run Bradley out in LF, add another producing bat at DH, and should an opening open up in LF due to an injury situation, etc., then, provided that Saunders is deserving of a call-up, I'd plug him in at the position and let him run with it during the injury period. If he shows that he's capable of playing at that level when he gets back up - then that's great. But he's got to SHOW ME that he's deserving of that time. And as of right now, he hasn't done anything to convince me that he can be relied on to give the kind of production that this team will need out of that position. |
| 43. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 15:28:32 Pat: What would your expectations of Vlad at DH be? Do you think it is unrealistic to think that he could have 120-130 games with about 450 ABs? If that is true, would a line of .290, 20 HR, and 80 RBIs be unrealistic? There's going to be a lot of guys that are going to be playing in the 120-140 game range for this team. The only guys that I see that they are going to be running out there primarily everyday is going to be Ichiro, Gutierrez, Figgins, Wilson, and Lopez. Particularly if they fill out the pieces with some older guys, you're going to see a number of examples of guys that are going to be getting some regular rest to keep them healthy over the long haul. |
| 44. By: Edman on 12-29-2009 15:37:25 safecochatter.....using your hypothesis, for fans to spend $10 million on merchandise, they'll want to see lots of him. |
| 45. By: Jerry on 12-29-2009 15:54:18 I would like to see the M's throw down some money and sign three more guys: Ben Sheets, Russ Branyan, and Aroldis Chapman. Sheets would give the M's a rotation of Felix, Lee, Sheets, RRS, and Snell, with Vargas, Fister, French, Olson, and Hill for depth. That is a great staff. Branyan is a no-brainer, and could cost the M's a whole lot less than we might have expected. The market for him seems incredibly meager. And Chapman would help restock a depleted farm system. Actually, it is debatable whether he would even count towards the player payroll. I guess it might depend on whether or not he is on the 40-man roster. Right now, the M's have zero impact arms in the upper levels of their farm system. Chapman would give them a guy who could help the club as early as 2010 (as a reliever) or 2011 (as a starter). I would love to see the M's make a bold move and pick him up. It would put an exclamation point on a great offseason. |
| 46. By: Adam T on 12-29-2009 16:23:19 Vlad doesn't fit on the roster. What with Bradley, Saunders, Hall, Langerhans, and Junior, we have no room for a guy who should really be DHing from here on out. If we get another bat, it will someone who can hold down 1B, not another DH/part-time OF. Branyan, LaRoche, and Delgado are the obvious FA choices. As for Chapman - does anyone know what he's being offered? I read on ESPN that the Red Sox offered $15 million. I'm assuming that's over three years. And if so, I think I'd be comfortable making that offer. Young, projectable arm getting money similar to what Strasburg got. I know he's not in Strasburg's league, but I'd rather spend $15 million on Chapman than Joel Pineiro, if you know what I mean. |
| 47. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 16:36:11 DMac, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your last post, but if Vlad did DH for 120-130 games, that only leaves 30-40 for Griffey and Bradley to share and I just don't see that happening. As far as what I'd expect from Vlad, I think a wOBA of .370 is probably his high end, and I'd prob peg Saunders at .320(something like a .260/320/400 triple slash) on the low end. So you'd be looking at most a gap of 50 points of wOBA or 25 runs(If Vlad played the entire year). We already know Saunders is a superior defender to Bradley, I'd peg him for 10 to 15 runs. So now the difference between Saunders and Vlad is 10 to 15 runs. Bradley's offense takes a hit from playing the field everyday(it has everywhere else), lets say another 10 runs. So at the end of the day we could be looking at paying Vlad $3-$4 mil to decrease roster flexibility and add only half a win? I just don't see it. |
| 48. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 16:39:39 From what I can gather ... I'd argue that this lineup needs 2 more bats - not one more bat. There is going to be a bat at 1B - no doubt about that. We don't know if that is going to be Branyan, Delgado, or Mystery Candidate A. There still is a hole in LF - and there is no guarantee that Saunders is the answer there. The fact that the Mariners were willing to trade him as part of the Lee package suggests at minimum that they don't think he's ready to be a 4-5 day per week starter in 2010. He's going to get experience in AAA and be called up to play the OF full-time should an injury happen. Hall and Langerhans are utility/bench players. Langerhans gives an ability to play multiple OF positions. Hall has position flexibility and can play pretty much anywhere on the IF and all of the OF positions. If you are thinking either of these guys are starting material on this team more than 1-2 times per week, then that's crazy and I'll immediately say that if that happens, then regardless of the top of our rotation I'd say that Angels are in a better position to win the West. This team needs a 2nd bat. Now, whether that bat is Vlad or Jermaine Dye, or some other LF candidate, I really don't know. Dye may make more sense in that he can play LF, but is his bat better than Vlad's? What would the money be for both? Contract length? When you factor all of that in, then perhaps Vlad is a better option than Dye and Bradley is asked to play LF. |
| 49. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 12-29-2009 16:40:27 Saunders can't hit a ML fastball. It is the same problem that Jeremy Reed had. Pitchers start by throwing a hitter pretty much all fastballs and make you prove you can hit them. Even Balentien had some early success while seeing mostly fastballs. When you can't hit the average ML fastball your not going to hit for a high average and your not going to walk because the pitchers know you can't hurt them and will challenge you. Saunders started to retool his swing in the final week of last season but there is still work to be done. Remember John Olerud, he had what I would call a fluid swing. Saunders is the exact opposite of this. Hopefully by spring he has gotten rid of that rediculous toe tap, he would be better off with a pronounced leg kick (like Holliday or Matsui). Let us also hope he has compacted his swing at least a little, although it has always been said that he had a wrather long swing. To summarize, until Saunders starts OPSing .900 against the top fastball pitchers in AAA we will know he is not ready. Are there things Saunders is good at? Without a doubt (pitch recognition, eye, defense and speed). But unless and until you can turn on a fastball you will never be successful. |
| 50. By: Jpaxton on 12-29-2009 16:50:44 45-Jerry I would disagree. I think Cortes is an impact arm who may very well have an eye-opening breakout season this year. His problems, with KC, as I understand it have always been head problems, never about his 'stuff'. (Not related, I think the same can be said about Snell). I am expectina good years from both in 2010. After this year, we should be able to add Pineda and Robles (maybe Hensley) to the list of impact talent in the upper minor leagues. |
| 51. By: 200tang on 12-29-2009 16:56:12 @45 Please don't even bring up Jermaine Dye or Vlad when we're talking about someone playing in the OF. Both are absolutely terrible fielders. Not to mention Jermaine Dye isn't even a stud with the bat. He's above average, sure, but the rest of his game easily cancels out that value. I'd rather stick Langerhans in LF next year than either of those guys. A run saved is roughly the same as a run earned. |
| 52. By: 200tang on 12-29-2009 16:56:43 woops, last comment was supposed to be directed toward 48, not 45 :) |
| 53. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 16:56:50 "I'd argue that this lineup needs 2 more bats - not one more bat" This argument still makes me scratch my head. If we add offense at the cost of defense, what have we added? Everyone knows the M's need drastic improvements offensively from 2009 to 2010, But if you add 10 runs of offense at the cost of 10 runs of run prevention you are just spinning your wheels. In a vacuum, sure Vlad is an excellent DH option, but Bradley HAS to DH more than he plays the field or he's gonna break down and SLG closer to .400 than .500. "Dye may make more sense in that he can play LF" LMFAO! Dye hasn't been able to play the OF since, well ever, and his bat is going in a bad direction. Saunders > Dye right now as a LF, as is Langerhans for that matter. "until Saunders starts OPSing .900 against the top fastball pitchers in AAA we will know he is not ready" Saunders OPS in AAA last year was .922 |
| 54. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 12-29-2009 17:04:14 Standin Pat I said OPSing .900 against the top competition not the journeymen junkballers. |
| 55. By: 200tang on 12-29-2009 17:19:16 I just feel like throwing this out there because I think a lot of people forget this. Michael Saunders (2009) PA vs LHP : 56 PA vs RHP : 73 He still wasn't very good against right handers, but that's an abnormal amount of lefties he faced when he came up. Not to mention he had quite a few games where he came in as a PH/PR/defensive replacement and as we know coming off the bench is harder than starting the game. I personally think Michael Saunders should be judged during ST and what we know, but I wouldn't mind sending him down to AAA to start the year and let Langerhans take over for awhile. I would be opposed to signing guys like Vlad or Jermaine Dye, though. |
| 56. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 17:19:56 See Pat, this is where I disagree with you in the sense of building a team and how statistics can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Before I get into the meat and potatoes ... this team, as currently constructed, is 2 bats short of where it needs to be. The consensus that I seem to hear is that the LF job should be handed to Saunders, Bradley DH's, and 1B du jour (either Branyan, Delgado, or some other mystery 1B comes into play). If you assume that, then what does your lineup look like? Maybe something like the following: Ichiro, RF Figgins, 3B Gutierrez, CF Bradley, DH Branyan/Delgado, 1B Lopez, 2B Saunders, LF Moore/Johnson, C Wilson, SS This lineup has issues to me. First, I really like Gutierrez as a 6-hitter in an order. 3rd may be a tad too high for him. If you move Bradley and the 1B situation up and put Gutierrez at 5, then you have a 5 and 6 spots in the order where on-base percentgage isn't overly huge that leads into a bottom third of the order that is going to struggle to generate a lot of runs on their own. What that tells me is that of the 9 innings in a game, I'd realistically think that you may have legitimate scoring chances in 4 or 5 of the 9 innings. That puts a ton of pressure on the upper half of your lineup to produce as well as a lot of pressure on your pitching staff to pitch at a high level game in and game out. Now, I do think that there is some validity into sitting there and thinking that Saunders is a superior OF compared to Bradley. And, I think if we were looking at a lineup where we may have excess offensive and not enough pitching/defense, then I think that adding Saunders into the lineup may be a prudent move. It's sort of what the Yankees have done at times with Brett Gardner. They know that they may not get a ton from him at the plate - but they do know that they are going to perhaps get a defensive play that saves some runs for them and that they've got enough spots in the lineup to do damage that they can live without him bringing much to the table. But, when you look at the Mariners situation, isn't the opposite true right now? Isn't there a consideration that perhaps the team has too much pitching/defense and not enough offense? It'd seem so to me. This staff will be a top 3 runs allowed team unless something drastic happens. While there is going to be some of that attributed to the quality of the defense, most of it will go to the pitching staff. Felix is a guy that has dominating stuff, has an ability to pitch to the strikeout when required, and gets a lot of ground balls and weak fly balls. In other words, the opposition doesn't tend to get a ton of great swings off of him. Much of the same can be said for Cliff Lee, minus a few of the strikeouts. The pen is full of guys with power arms that can overpower teams. When I look at that situation, it suggests to me that perhaps, just perhaps, the requirement for defense in LF isn't as vital as it is at other places in the diamond. The team has very solid defensive OF in CF and RF. The team is very solid defensively at 3B and SS. 2B is average. 1B is unknown. With dominating pitchers, I think it is more vital to be solid with your IF defense than it is with your OF defense. The number of balls laced to the gaps, etc. that the OF needs to run down is much, much less with the dominating pitchers. So in that sense, I do tend to think that while the numbers of a Saunders/Bradley combination compared to Bradley/Dye or Bradley/Vlad are important, the needs of this ballclub suggests that the team needs to error on the side of offense in this case. Further, I think that while on-base percentage is a highly valuable statistical measure, I think it's value can be misleading depending on how it is used. To harken back to when the Nick Johnson debate was taking place, I thought that Nick Johnson would be a very valuable member to a team that was looking at him as a potential #2 hitter (ability to get on base) or towards the bottom of the order (as a means to turn the lineup over with runners on base). I expect that that is how the Yankees will use him. But, while his on-base % is nice, his slugging % isn't at the standards required for a middle of the order bat. That puts significant pressure on your team if you have to essentially get 3 plays going your way to score (i.e. walk, walk, single, etc.). Moreover, such a player would not provide any kind of concern to a pitcher. You want guys in the middle of the order that make a pitcher take an extra second to think before he throws. You want that pitcher to have to throw stressful pitches. You want that pitcher to know that if he makes a mistake with that pitch he runs the risk of giving up an extra-base hit and multiple runs scoring. So, when you look at what I'd consider in a proposed lineup, I think you can see where the value of the lineup comes. I'll put two of them up, one that assumes Vlad as DH and Bradley in LF and then Dye in LF and Bradley at DH. Ichiro, RF Figgins, 3B Bradley, LF/DH Vlad/Dye, DH/LF Branyan/Delgado, 1B Gutierrez, CF Lopez, 2B Moore/Johnson, C Wilson, SS Now, this lineup makes sense. You have speed at the top of the order. You have a high OB % in your 3-hole with Bradley that has some power to boot. You have a right-handed power option at the cleanup position that a pitcher has to respect. Your 1B at #5 is another guy that a pitcher has to respect and pitch carefully to. Gutierrez at 6 is in a perfect position because if he continues his development into a breakthrough season he further adds depth to the middle of the order. Now, you have Lopez hitting 7th which provides power production deep in the order. That now makes the 8th spot in the order (your weakest) as being a flexible position where asking the position to be able to handle the bat a bit or being subject to a pinch hitting option (see Griffey) could be possible depending on the situation. Ideally, you are asking that spot in the order to at minimum work at making productive outs. And, with Wilson hitting 9th, you aren't asking him necessarily to be a run producer, but to just be a guy that can handle the bat and be able to get the line up turned over. It's a much more free flowing and logical lineup. The major difference between this lineup and the one posted above with Saunders in the lineup is a very subtle one, but a very important one. The extra bat adds the necessary and required depth to the lineup and gets the players slotted in the positions in the order required to be successful. Clearly, there will be bench players inserted into the lineup from time to time such that the lineup will look like the first one posted instead of the second. However, that's also important to note because what happens in the first example when you take out one of the vital pieces and replace with a utility player? Now all of a sudden that lineup goes even deeper into the hole. Hence, I guess what I'm saying is that is why I think statistics are highly dangerous to rely upon. The arguments used regarding runs scored/allowed are very reasonable arguments. In an ideal world, we'd definitely want higher on-base percentages than not. And, the thought behind win shares is worth noting. But when you put the puzzle pieces together, it still has to pass the "look test" to me. And lineup #1, the lineup that assumes Saunders is in LF and doesn't really have a viable backup plan in case either a) he fails to show that he's a productive big league hitter or b) there are other critical injuries to any of the major players on the roster doesn't pass the "look test" to me. That situation looks to me like someone saying "if this and that and this happens, we've got a really good chance at contending." When I look at lineup #2, and I look at how that puzzle fits together, I see a depth in the lineup that supports the depth on the mound. I see a team that sacrifices a little bit of defense for what should amount to a much better offense. I see a team that has the pieces in place that should an unfortunate injury happen, etc., that there still exists options for maintaining the situation (i.e. you revert back to lineup #1 and still have a good chance at contending). In other words, it's a puzzle that tells me "this is a team that could be considered favorites in the division and a team that could be very dangerous in October." Perhaps it's just the cynical guy that has been around athletics my entire life and realizes that there is a lot that isn't captured by the numbers. I do not believe that RBI totals are just a byproduct of opportunity and that everybody is equally as good in those situations. I do believe people respond differently to pressure situations. There are people that want the responsibility in those situations and those that don't want it. And if given a choice, I know that I'd much rather trust those kind of situations with someone that has a history of being productive in those situations than crossing my fingers that someone can learn that on the job. |
| 57. By: Adam T on 12-29-2009 17:22:02 54 - Yeah - not too many players at any level put up a .900 OPS vs. top competition. If I remember correctly, Roy Halladay does pretty well against the Yankees... |
| 58. By: 200tang on 12-29-2009 17:22:13 USSM weighs in on the LF/DH/1B situation. http://ussmariner.com/2009/12/29/left-field-and-dh/ "The Mariners do not have enough money for an LF, 1B, and an SP. If they get good value, they might be able to afford two quality players at those spots. It seems clear to me that 1B and SP are the cheaper, easier routes to upgrade. The current group can handle LF/DH, and provide good value to the team. The M’s don’t need to add another bat there. There are better ways to upgrade the roster, even if it doesn’t satisfy some people’s constant need for “a power bat”." |
| 59. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 17:31:12 And for the record, I hate the idea of Jermaine Dye. I'd much rather put Bradley in LF, Vlad at DH, and allow Saunders to play everyday in AAA and be available should Bradley break down. IMO, Vlad is an upgrade to Bradley at DH. IMO, Bradley is an upgrade to Saunders in LF. And, I do not specifically agree with the statement that a run saved is the same as a run earned. It's nice in theory. But if you are trying to build a championship caliber club - I'm not entirely sure that it's the right motto to live by. If this team gives up 625 runs, 650 runs, or 675 runs, they still are going to be most likely in the top 3 in runs allowed. The problem is that this team needs to get up into the 750-800 runs scored category. Where they are on the spectrum may not necessarily matter in the regular season. It might be good enough to win the division with a guy like Saunders in LF playing at a below average offensive level. But when you get to the postseason and you are facing the Yankees or Red Sox, and you have significant holes on your offensive baseball team, you aren't going to beat them. It doesn't matter how good your pitching and defense is. They will still score a few runs here and there even against good pitching more often than not. You have to be able to do the same. The 3-2 games you win normally turn into 4-3 games against them. And, it's not like they are going to be rolling out chop liver as pitchers - they've got some horses to roll out. I'm not sure I care if people want to laugh at my opinions. That's fine. But if someone is going to sit there and suggest that they'd rather have Ryan Langerhans play LF full-time under any condition, that's absolutely crazy. If you enjoy .210 hitting LFs, then be my guest. Not saying I don't think that Langerhans has a role - but he certainly should not be anywhere close to a full-time starter for any team that is trying to do anything more or less than winning a Steven Strasburg, Bryce Harper, etc. sweepstakes. |
| 60. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 17:39:57 Regarding 58: I think a long-standing problem of the Mariner organization, and its fans, has been an inability to accurately understand the value of power bats and front line starting pitchers. As I've said before, and I'm sure I'll say again, you get to October based on the quality of your 25 man roster. There will be injuries. Your depth will be tested. The influence of an ace in the grand scheme of things is reduced. But by the time you get to October, the bench is used only situationally. The least productive portion of your pitching staff and bullpen is eliminated. You are playing with what in reality is about an 18-man roster. You win in October with front line starting pitching and difference making bats that pitchers have to respect. A hot bat in the middle of the order can directly influence the result of a series. A hot ace can directly influence the result of a series. This team may not need Cliff Lee to win the division. This team would need Cliff Lee to win in October though. So yes, this team could definitely head into the season with Saunders playing LF. It could work out. It does reduce their margin for error though - impossible not to admit that. I still wouldn't rule out the SP upgrade coming through a trade as I'm not sure that the arms that are still on the market will come at a price that will fit what we are trying to do versus the production that they will provide. If Cincy is really interested in cutting payroll, I'd be much more interested in seeing if I could get an inning eater like Bronson Arroyo in a deal - he's a guy that you know what you are going to get out of him. And honestly - isn't that what we are looking for to support the front 2 and to provide stability for the back 2? |
| 61. By: jgstecker on 12-29-2009 17:49:32 Why is anyone talking about Jermaine Dye at all? Since the All-Star Break he's barely out-hit Saunders. I can see a case for Vlad to DH with Bradley in LF. Problem is, who's the defensive replacement for Bradley? Your bench is still Johnson-Hall-Hannahan-Griffey. I don't like it. I'll take my chances with Saunders. Plus, the lineup is too right-handed as it is. |
| 62. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 17:58:06 Re: 61 ... A 5-man bench puts you at 14 position players and 11 pitchers. Considering that you'd want Felix and Lee to pitch on a regular rotation, you may be able to skip the 5th spot in the rotation from time to time and that could be a de facto long man. But all told, given the top of the front line, the innings required from the pen should be limited. In that situation, you may be able to get away with having 6 in the pen instead of 7 in the pen. And, is Hannahan a guarantee to make the team? Hall has tremendous position flexibility. If Langerhans makes the team, he can also play all OF spots. It can definitely work - but you do need to have someone on your bench that has options and can be sent on the shuttle to Tacoma if/when a 12th pitcher may be required. |
| 63. By: okori on 12-29-2009 18:32:24 Who really expects Bradley to stay healthy all year anyway? 400ABs is a high total for him, and if we assume that he's going to spend time on the DL, why hide him at DH? His #s rose when he DHd in Texas, but he DHd in TEXAS. They've got a pretty good lineup, right? And they play in a smallish ballpark? The only other impact OFs on the market outside of Holliday are Ankiel (debatable), Damon (who most would want to use as a DH) and Dye (another DH). You're either happy with a 3-4 of Bradley, Lopez, or you're not.. I'm not all that happy with anyone on the roster in the 3 hole, and would love to see Vlad there. AND Griffey's gonna sit vs Griffey's gonna play. Answer's probably somewhere in the middle.. If Cameron's 1400 ABs for LF/DH are a good guess, then how's it unreasonable to picture: Bradley: 400ABs Vlad: 400ABs Griffey: 300ABs Langehans/Hall the rest.. This is different if Vlad's expensive, or if the M's can't contend. Vlad's gonna sign for around $3, and the M's are expected to do something this year, so I think you've gotta make this move.. Also on defense, to address it correctly we've gotta look at how many balls are hit to LF, and how many Saunders can get to vice Bradley for approx 7 innings. Factor in park differences (ie defense is more important at home) and the fact that Langerhans is going to be coming in after Bradley's last AB. AND, if we consider that Bradley signed in CHC, does he really want to DH? And how does Bradley do when he's sulking? I'd run him in LF to keep him happy. I sign: Vlad at $3 Delgado (1st option) or Branyon at $4 Bedard at $6 mill (he's not signing a minor league deal anywhere) And Chapman at $5-$6. |
| 64. By: Marlin Man on 12-29-2009 18:55:47 Jason- Humor the old MArlinMan will ya: WHO in your mind anyway is gonna end up with Beltre? Thanks In Advance M.M. |
| 65. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 19:05:29 "Standin Pat I said OPSing .900 against the top competition not the journeymen junkballers." And you know for sure he didn't have any success against the better pitchers in the league? "See Pat, this is where I disagree with you in the sense of building a team and how statistics can be dangerous if used incorrectly." So which statistics are being used incorrectly and how should they be used? I'm just curious because I don't see any mention of specifics or how they should be used differently. Additionally, your shiny new front office, that seems to be pushing all the right buttons, is currently using advanced stats to construct their roster. Really though, I'm just still amazed that people can watch the M's make a 24 game improvement, while scoring less runs, and still try to argue that saving 10 runs doesn't have the same value as scoring 10 runs. The idea that you need a specific number of "bats" is flawed, and its a flaw that the Bavasi regime proved over and over again. If the Mariners can win 85 games with a horrible offense, why can't they win 90+ with a simply average one? |
| 66. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 19:14:01 "His #s rose when he DHd in Texas" "AND, if we consider that Bradley signed in CHC, does he really want to DH?" So he Dh'd in Texas and was fine with it, but wouldn't want to in Seattle? I don't buy that, and he signed with CHC because they made him the best offer. I think Bradley wants to remain healthy, productive, and in the lineup everyday, and if that means spending a good chunk of time at DH I think he'd be just fine with it. |
| 67. By: universalguru on 12-29-2009 19:21:04 StandinPat let's get our offense TO average before we think we can improve on last year's wins. We weren't an 85 win team last year (projection-wise). Ideally we'll keep overachieving but more importantly we need at LEAST one big bat at 1B... and Branyan's health scares me though I love the guy. I'd love to sign Felipe Lopez and move J. Lopez and others for a big bat at first but who knows if that's possible? |
| 68. By: okori on 12-29-2009 19:22:37 Bradley doesn't remain healthy, and chose to play a season in the NL where he could play the field. He's DHd one year. Count on injuries. Project 400ABs. I'd rather have those ABs in LF with Saunders filling in when he's hurt. Guerrero >> Griffey His #s were almost identical to Bradleys. Who was in the tougher league. Plus he's cheap. Guerrero's an easy sign. Z talks about adding talent. Let's add talent, and let Wak figure out the rotation. |
| 69. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2009 19:22:48 I'm all for using statistical analysis. I'm not in favor of using statistical analysis as an "end all and be all." Baseball statistics IMO are full of abnormalities and incomparables. While statistics can capture a lot, it doesn't capture everything and there still are things that the numbers can't capture (or at least in IMO have yet to be able to capture). But I think every front office in the majors would tell you that while the numbers can point them in the right direction, there still is a bit of intuition and analysis that is done with the eyes and gut. See, I think you are also missing a large portion of my argument. I don't look at this team by being satisfied by a division winner. Why should you be thinking that way when you have 2 of maybe the best 5-7 starting pitchers in the majors? That's a foundation that should have you thinking of a World Series. The way I'm looking at this team is all about not only how can they minimize the possibility of not qualifying for October play and how can they give themselves the best possibility for success once they get there. If you are going to think from the terms of "why can't they win 90+ with a simply average one?" ... then I'd suggest that you are setting your expectations way too low. |
| 70. By: slamminghard on 12-29-2009 19:35:54 i am very happy to see Jackie Z do what he has been doing. i think it would be nice to package jose lopez, ian snell and maybe vargas or french for another starter. in turn sign felipe lopez to shore up the defense at second. jose might have a few homers in him but he really kills it when it comes to defense. there is really no reason to have a defensive guru like jack wilson at ss if he isnt going to be utilize to make the double play. jose lopez has shown he really isnt to interested in bettering himself at second. adam laroche or adrain gonzalez (if mr z could pull a trade) would be great. both are an upgrade at 1st and provide you someone that can play everyday. i think left field will most like be platooned with mr bradley and saunders which is fine. maybe they will let mr junior go out and make some fan happy. with the remaining cash they can go one of two ways. take 20 mill and split it between the contracts of felix and cliff to sign them to extended contracts or bring in ben sheets to compete with the yankees and red sox for the strongest rotation. i personally like the extend contracts idea. we have enough young arms that we can make do or even package and trade for a nice young strong arm that is a little more proven then our 4-5 starters.. just my two cents... oh why the way can we vote now on best gm of the mlb.. cause jackie got my vote |
| 71. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 19:54:27 I'm not missing anything. Just bringing up the fact that once you factor in the difference in defense, and what playing in the field everyday might do to Bradley's performance, there is a very good chance that Vlad isn't gonna be a significant improvement over what we already have. The M's have a finite amount of money to spend and if dropping $4 mil on Vlad to provide a marginal improvement keeps you from possibly improving elsewhere, then its a mistake. If that $4 mil reduces what you have left to spend and you net say Doug Davis instead of Ben Sheets then what have you gained? Bradley needs to DH some, and Griffey can't play the field at all. Every AB either one of those guys gets at DH reduces Vlad's value as he should never see the field either. I completely agree Guerrero is a good hitter and would be a great get for several teams out there, just not ours. That money is better spend elsewhere, 1B and SP. Now if signing him has no impact of what they might do at those two spots, then its a different story. But I do believe a player like Luke Scott at $4 mil is gonna give you more bang for your buck than Vlad at the same price. "then I'd suggest that you are setting your expectations way too low." What expectations are too low? Have I voiced my expectations? Pretty sure all I said was the M's don't have to have a great offense to be a playoff caliber team. |
| 72. By: okori on 12-29-2009 20:15:49 Scott vs Guerrero were very similar last year, and Guerrero was hurt all year. Plus Scott is 32, and due for a regression. He'd be coming to a bigger park.. All bad signs.. Guerrero >> Griffey/Bradley at DH. You have the opportunity to improve a spot on the field. Do it. Than look at LF. Bradley vs ... 1B - Delgado/Brayon or Scott if you really want him.. On Bedard- I'd sign him to 1 + a team option. If you can have him + Chapman + Felix in 2K11, I think you're looking okay. |
| 73. By: DRWheelock on 12-29-2009 20:34:14 Jason, Can you fill me in why we couldn't use Ackley at 1B? He's been there all through college. Plus he has LF experience. I know the idea was to try him at 2B for more versatility, but I would think he "could" easily compete for 1B right out of ST this year. We could sign Branyan to a 1 year deal, and use Ackley in LF. Then if Branyan goes down on the DL, then we put Ackley at his natural 1B position with Bradley in LF. Ackley and Branyan could share time at 1B, with Branyan DHing more, and when Branyan plays 1B, Ackley goes to LF. Then next offseason, Ackley can go play Winter ball and AFL to learn 2B next year for 2011. So here goes...Sign: 1) $3.5M + $1.5M incentives for Branyan on 1 year deal 2) Sign Bedard to minor league deal with a $2M base when he hits the MLB roster, and $2M every 50 innings he pitches in 2010. 3) Make sure Ackley is playing 100% between 1B & LF in 2010, so he gets 100% batting time. 4) Either sign Sheets on a similar deal like Texas with Harden, or go trade for Harang as a #3 starter 2010 Rotation Felix Lee Sheets OR Harang Bedard Snell with RRS going to bullpen as our LHP We'd then have top SP, top Bullpen, top Defense. Regarding Offense? Even though I'd LOVE to have Gonzo OR Fielder, Jason doesn't see it happening...so until a miracle like that happens I think we can live with replacing Beltre's bat (which we lost in free agency), with Bradley/Figgins & Ackley. We've added a ton of OBP to our lineup, even though losing Beltre's bat. We also would have a ton of money to trade for an offensive bat by July to fill an offensive hole if need be (Fielder or Gonzo), but according to Jason that ain't happenin?! |
| 74. By: StandinPat on 12-29-2009 20:43:48 "Plus Scott is 32, and due for a regression. He'd be coming to a bigger park.. All bad signs.." And Guerrero is 35, has been regressing and would be coming to same park. Difference is Scott can play LF, and possibly 1B, and that raises his value to this team. "Guerrero >> Griffey/Bradley at DH" First off, Griffey is on the team and will be getting AB's at DH, so its not Guerrero vs. Griffey/Bradley, its Guerrero/Griffey vs. Bradley/Griffey and secondly I'd disagree that Guerrero is a lock to better than Bradley at this point in there careers. |
| 75. By: 200tang on 12-29-2009 21:08:28 @73 "Can you fill me in why we couldn't use Ackley at 1B? He's been there all through college. Plus he has LF experience. I know the idea was to try him at 2B for more versatility, but I would think he "could" easily compete for 1B right out of ST this year. We could sign Branyan to a 1 year deal, and use Ackley in LF. Then if Branyan goes down on the DL, then we put Ackley at his natural 1B position with Bradley in LF. Ackley and Branyan could share time at 1B, with Branyan DHing more, and when Branyan plays 1B, Ackley goes to LF. Then next offseason, Ackley can go play Winter ball and AFL to learn 2B next year for 2011. " Ackley is not a 'natural' first basemen. He played mostly OF and one year of 1B in college + he was a SS in high school. Putting him at 1B is also a waste of developmental time, unless you plan on leaving him at 1B for his career. Eventually he's going to have to learn another position and right now is his best time. It's easier to promote a player than it is to demote. Also, if he does stick at 2B, it will take longer than winter league & AFL. Not to mention it's not a great idea to send a guy who just completed an entire ML season + possibly playoffs and then send him out for the entire winter to play even more. Ackley is not a first basemen now and should never be. I know everyone wants to win right now, but is stunting Ackley's growth worth that? Not to mention I don't even think he'd be any better than Carp, so I guess it's a moot point. |
| 76. By: banton on 12-29-2009 21:10:55 I'll take "Starting Pitcher for $200.", Jack!! We will have a bat at 1b. Another starter will come via trade or FA. We have, on paper, one of the best bullpens now. Left field is taken care of-you can argue all day, but I doubt that Saunders breaks camp. We have Langerhans, Hall and Bradley there. End of story.......... I seriously doubt that Lopez goes via trade; I have faith that Wak can continue to get through to him, and face it, he CAN hit (just not with RISP). Take it to the bank; defense and starting pitching (the right kink) can get us to the playoffs. We have the hitters, with one more coming when they choose a first baseman. |
| 77. By: banton on 12-29-2009 21:12:20 not kink---kind. Sorry. |
| 78. By: Coug1990 on 12-29-2009 21:45:30 "Guererro >> Griffey/Bradley at DH. You have the opportunity to improve a spot on the field. Do it." Based on Guerrero's most recent year, tell me why he is so great an upgrade over either Griffey or Bradley. You also fail to recognize that Griffey IS on this team next year; No if's and's or but's. By signing Guerrero, they would lose versatility on the bench. The current bench is made up of players that can play multiple positions. Vlad is just like Griffey, a DH. Who would Vlad replace on the roster that doesn't hurt the team in other ways? |
| 79. By: frontstreetfan on 12-29-2009 22:47:47 Slamminghard, I like Felipe Lopez too but not because his defense is much different than Jose Lopez. His OBP and overall hitting is better not his defense. His career UZR ratings are relatively similar to Jose. He would be a nice addition though. I think the M's are going to wait it out and concentrate on a value addition at 1st or SP. Also, to those who think Delgado is a good option. No way, he's a terrible 1st baseman and I believe rated one of the worst defensive first baseman of the last decade -29 UZR career fielding rating at first. See Fangraph |
| 80. By: jkcmason on 12-30-2009 02:02:19 DMac- I have to say that you are cracking me up with the way that you stick to your guns. Some of my favorite quotes came from your statements on 59. "I do not specifically agree with the statement that a run saved is the same as a run earned. It's nice in theory. But if you are trying to build a championship caliber club - I'm not entirely sure that it's the right motto to live by" Did you not watch the same Mariners that I watched last year? Were you paying attention to what the biggest difference was between the 2008 Mariners and the 2009 Mariners. There are three major parts to analyzing baseball. Pitching, Batting and Fielding. Our Starting rotation didn't change between 2008 and 2009. Our lineup didn't improve drastically between 2008 and 2009 at the plate. Somehow we won 24 more games. You cannot disagree that the major factor in improving our team was the defense. GMZ found the the most cost effective way to improve the team was defensively. Making a move like starting Bradley in LF would completely go against the one great thing that we have going for us. from 2009 to 20010 it looks like we have the ability to have the leagues best defense again, A lot better pitching with the additions of Lee, League and possibly another SP, and an improved lineup with Bradley, Figgins, and our addition to come at 1B. I think that the leagues best defense, and the leagues best pitching will go further than you realize. "But when you get to the postseason and you are facing the Yankees or Red Sox, and you have significant holes on your offensive baseball team, you aren't going to beat them." Last year without Cliff Lee, Chone Figgins, Milton Bradley, Brandon League, and any additional improvements we make we were 8-7 against the Red Sox and Yankees. 4-2 against Boston and 4-5 against New York. You really don't think we will be able to match up against them? If you look at the Red Sox offseason you will notice that they are starting to learn from GMZ's moves last year. Aside from the biggest signing of Lackey, they have signed Marco Scutaro, Mike Cameron and are seriously targeting Adrian Beltre. Cameron, Ellsbury & Drew in the Outfield. Beltre, Scutaro, Pedroia and Youkilis in the infield They would rather go over the luxery tax with Cameron and Beltre than with a big contract to Jason Bay. |
| 81. By: okori on 12-30-2009 11:24:39 Everyone's stated that Griffey's here on/for a reduced role (Z/Wak). 300ABs seems like a good amount for him. If there are 1400 ABs for LF/DH, seems like there's enough for Griffey at 300 and Guerrerro/Bradley at 400 each. Plus I'll take a .060 OPS upgrade for $100 Alex. Guerrero in his injury plagued year put up eerily similar stats to Bradley in his (in a much weaker division/league). + Guerrero improved as his health got better (outproducing Bradley in the 2nd half). I think he's a safer bet for >> production this year. I think the Latin influence in the club house is a benefit. I also think Rick Griffin is a factor here. Jose Guillen cited him as a reason why he signed here. Griffin's going to be busy, but he's a hell of a trainer. I think Guerrero's our best option in the 3 hole, outside of a big trade. Sign him + Branyon/Delgado/(trade for Scott). Bedard can give us that arm for the 2nd half. I don't see a lot of high impact arms in the system. Chapman would provide one. Plus the A's/Angels are rumored to be in on him, and I don't want him anywhere else in the division. |
| 82. By: DMac33 on 12-30-2009 12:07:04 Re 80: I don't think that you'd ever hear me say that defense wasn't important. And clearly, when you looked at the '08 Mariners and compare them to the '09 Mariners, the difference in defense was night and day difference. Not that it matters much, and it's not like I can bring out anything to suggest that, but understanding how defense can be an impact in the game and the inherent undervaluing of such defense has been something I've recognized for 10-15 years going back to when I was in high school. So, I do get it. But, I'm not talking about ignoring defense. What I'm saying is that I don't think you can look at the spectrum and say that a run saved is as good as a run scored. It's not quite as linear as that. My statement is that at some point, you do have to acheive what I'd consider to be an optimum balance. We currently do have a very solid defensive roster. May be one of the better defenses in the American League. But at what point does adding another great glove (particularly if the decision of adding that glove is at the expense of offense) provide a duplicative effect? Or, for those that are economically based, at what point do we start entering into the realm of observing the "law of diminishing returns." And that's pretty much my point. I think that there can be tremendous gains made to this team offensively. I'm not sure that we can make many more improvements to the team defensively. I'm not sure that you can say at this point that a defensive/offensive option in LF is exactly a 1:1 relationship in runs prevented vs. runs created. Admittedly, I don't have any kind of computer simulation to support that. What I do know is what I've seen. What I do know is an understanding that that principal is real. And, an understanding that says that the Mariners are close to a position of really minimizing their runs allowed. I'm perfectly fine with someone having a different opinion than mine. But I can tell you that I'm not going to be convinced that at where the Mariners currently are, that they aren't getting into the territory of observing the "law of diminishing returns," and that assumes that they haven't already gotten to that point. I also think a tremendous fallacy that I've seen historically with Mariner fans/management is the vision that there isn't much of a difference between the regular season and the postseason. First, pitching rotations are more settled in the postseason - you are more likely to get the best of the opposition. Second, pitchers tend to be more in form towards the backend of the season - particularly the elite pitching that you find in the postseason. These are important considerations to keep in mind. Consider the following: The Mariners played 10 games against the Yankees last year, winning 4 of those games. The starters in those games, for the Yankees, were: Sabathia - 3 starts, Yankees 2-1 vs. Mariners in those starts Pettite - 2 starts, Yankees 2-0 vs. Mariners in those starts Burnett - 1 start, Yankees 0-1 vs. Mariners in those starts (that was the Felix CG that was won via a BS by Rivera - I'd call that a rare event). Joba Chamberlain - 3 starts, Yankees 1-2 vs. Mariners in those starts Sergio Mitre - 1 start, Yankees 1-0 vs. Mariners in those starts. Note that I separated the starts of Sabathia, Pettite, and Burnett because those would have been the starters that the Mariners would face in October. The Yankees were 4-2 in those 6 games - with one of those games being a Rivera blown save (how likely would that be in October?). In other words, the Mariners would have been hard pressed to win a 7-game series against the Yankees. The Mariners were 4-2 against the Red Sox last year. They faced Lester 2x (1-1 in those games) and the remaining starts 1x each: Beckett (0-1), Masterson (1-0), Wakefield (1-0), Penny (1-0). Again, in a playoff series, the only starters that the Mariners would likely see would be Lester and Beckett out of that group and the Mariners were 1-2 against that collection. Again, let me remind, and this is backed up in the above, that there is a big difference between facing the top of a team's rotation and the back half of the rotation. Notice that the Mariners were very successful in the games started by the back half of the rotations of the Yankees and Red Sox. When faced with the front of those rotations, they struggled. I think your opinions on what the Red Sox are doing is a little overreaching. The Red Sox have known for a while about needing to upgrade their defensive talent. It does not surprise me at all that they are doing so. But they are also getting good baseball players here - not just defensive players. They've had a hole at SS for a while - Scutaro gives them a good plug there. Lowell is breaking down and because of that isn't the solid glove that he used to be - Beltre is a good replacement for them there. Cameron is still a good OF both offensively and defensively. By signing him, they will be able to slide Ellsbury and his weaker arm over to LF where it will be more protected by the Monster. Their lineup is still pretty fierce though, even with this supposed focus on defense: Ellsbury, LF Pedroia, 2B Martinez, C Youklis, 1B Ortiz, DH Drew, RF Beltre, 3B Cameron, CF Scutaro, SS That's pretty good. And they have options. They can move Pedroia to leadoff, Scutaro to the 2-hole, and Ellsbury down to 9. It's a good lineup and certainly is a better lineup than what the Mariners have right now and in all honesty isn't that far behind what the Yankees have - although the Yankees have much more overall power. If you look at that lineup real close, where is the weakest part of that lineup? Is it Ellsbury who was a .300 hitter last year? Is it Scutaro who scored 100 runs last year? Is it Cameron who has a history of being a guy that puts up 25 HRs and 80 RBIs when healthy - numbers that you can almost book? Is it Ortiz? Take your pick there - if you are calling either of those guys the "weak spot" in the lineup, then you've got a good lineup. In my personal opinion, anybody that really thinks that we can beat either the Yankees or Red Sox in a 7-game postseason series right now, with only an upgrade to 1B and maybe 1 more starting pitcher and relying on some combination of Saunders/Hall/Langerhans in LF is either fooling themselves or has an over-inflated sense of the abilities of some of the Mariners players. Not saying that the Mariners couldn't beat those teams in a series, but even with a rotation fronted by Felix and Lee, I'd consider such a scenario to be unlikely. |
| 83. By: DMac33 on 12-30-2009 12:13:39 Pat: You are right - I haven't seen you voice your expectations. I can gauge though from your comments though that you are suggesting that this team has playoff expectations. I can also gauge from some of your comments that you are content running Saunders, or a Hall/Langerhans combination, out in LF and keeping Bradley as the full-time DH with Griffey giving some spells. I do not necessarily disagree with the thought that this team COULD win the division constructed like that and get into October. What I WOULD DISAGREE with though is saying that a team constructed as such would be anything less than a decided underdog to beat the Red Sox or Yankees in a postseason series. As I've said a few times, and I will I'm sure say a few more times, there are in my opinion 2 different, distinct baseball seasons: 1) The 162-game season to determine who gets to play in the 2nd season. 2) The postseason tournament where you have to win 3 series against the best opposition to win a championship. Right now, the Mariners are looking to be in good shape to be successful in the 1st season. They aren't looking too strong in my opinion for the 2nd season. It doesn't do any good to be built for the 2nd season (which I'd argue that the Mariners have a tremendous foundation for that with 2 of the top 5 to 7 starters in the game in Felix and Lee along with a power pen that can close the door on teams) if you can't get to that point OR you don't supplement what you've got on one side of the equation with the other side of the equation. While the arms are good enough to win in October, the bats right now aren't good enough. Pitching and defense only takes you so far. You can get a long way down the line with it. But eventually, you are going to come across a team that can pitch with you, maybe even play defense with you, but can generate runs much better than you. At that point, your inadequacies are telling and you get to start booking your tee times for the Fall/Winter. |
| 84. By: StandinPat on 12-30-2009 12:47:21 "First, pitching rotations are more settled in the postseason - you are more likely to get the best of the opposition" "Sabathia - 3 starts, Yankees 2-1 vs. Mariners in those starts Pettite - 2 starts, Yankees 2-0 vs. Mariners in those starts Burnett - 1 start, Yankees 0-1 vs. Mariners in those starts" True, you are more likely to get the best of your opposition, but they will also be facing your best. Throwing out W/L records of their best vs anyone but our best is irrelevant. Sabathia beat Snell and Fister, Pettite didn't outpitch RRS in one of his starts, and beat Washburn in his other. So what does that tell us? That if put our worst against their best in a short series we'll prob lose. Well, i'm glad that's settled. Fact is our best, whom they'd be facing, have fared very well against NYY themselves. By comparison, Felix - 1 start 1-0, 2-1 in 3 starts over the last 3 years Cliff Lee - 2 starts 1-1, 2-1 in 3 starts over the last 3 years Rowland-Smith - 1 start, 7 inn, 2ER Furthermore, the Yankees best starters wouldn't be facing the 2009 Mariners, so those W/L records become even less relevant. Fact of the matter is Sabathia, Burnett, and actually Vazquez, would be facing Felix, Lee, and RRS(As of now) and a much better offensive team in the 2010 M's. I'm not saying they've caught the Yankees, or that they don't still need to improve, but all the examples you used show is that their best was better than our back end in 2009. |
| 85. By: Edman on 12-30-2009 14:24:13 I find the whole debate about what it takes to win a World Series, with a grain of salt. First and foremost, the M's have to concentrate on their division. They need to stay on that target and not worry about who they'll face in the playoffs. You have to get there first. If recent history has shown us anything, it's that the favorite doesn't always end up the WS winner. It's a short season of seven games. One bad game, can shift momentum. It really doesn't matter who you start the season with. You don't have to cover all bases now. A key acquisition at or before the trading deadline, can shore up any weak areas. We'd all love to start the season with the best team possible. But the idea that it all has to be done now is not at all supported by history. I'll take a three man rotation that starts with Felix and Cliff, any day of the week. How hard would it be at the deadline, to add a third reasonable arm to round it out, as compared to spending it all now, and find out your plans didn't turn out as well as hoped? There's something to saving a little money for use at the trading deadline, in case you need it. DMac, you seem to think it's now or never. As Jason would say, "It just isn't." |
| 86. By: DMac33 on 12-30-2009 15:15:33 Edman: I'm a tad curious where you have come up with the idea that my line of thinking is "now or never." If anything, I think it's much more long-term than this year. I've been very consistent in saying that I think that a rotation front loaded with Felix and Cliff Lee has a chance to contend for Division, League, and World Championships year in and year out. I've been very consistent in saying that not only does Felix need to be resigned, but that I'd also work very hard at resigning Cliff Lee. Can you explain to me how that is a short-term focus? It'd seem quite the opposite to me. If you look at most of the suggestions that I've made, most of them have come via the free agent market. The only long-term contract that I've advoced on the free agent market was in fact Chone Figgins - I thought he'd be a tremendous fit for what this team was trying to do and what it needed to be to be successful. I believe that there were a few people I ran across (not just here, but elsewhere) that laughed at that suggestion and said that there was no way that he'd be in Seattle. Yep, he's in Seattle. Moreover, when you look at the free agent moves that I'm advocating, I'm advocating many short-term contracts. I'm suggesting that you bring Vlad in as a DH option and work in the parameters of a 1 to 2 year deal - I'd also make it heavily incentive laden if necessary to be able to win the bidding. I've advocated looking at either Branyan or Delgado at 1B because each of those would be short-term contracts that'd allow the team to reconsider options in the future and/or allow for a player like Carp or someone else in the minor league system a path to the bigs if they prove that they can handle the position. I've been an advocate of moving Ackley to 2B because it provides him with one of the most direct paths to the big leagues if the team decides not to resign Jose Lopez. I've been a heavy advocate of believing that RRS has the chance to be a very good pitcher for us and should be given every opportunity to continue to show that at the big league level. I've also been an advocate of saying that I think Ian Snell has some good stuff and if they can get him straightened he can provide tremendous depth to the rotation as one of the best, if not best, 5th starter in the league. Not many 5th starters have electric stuff. What you have not heard me advocate so much is trying to do a lot of work through trades. You couldn't turn down the package for Lee. I don't think that the trade of Morrow was bad because quite frankly, I didn't think he had a future in Seattle. He needed to move on. It wasn't going to work here - regardless of how good his stuff was. When I look at the minor league system, I don't see a lot of guys that can go out and be difference makers that will allow us to make the kind of moves in July that will be necessary to grab a difference making arm or a difference making bat. I'd much rather be in a position where a trade needs to be made to plug a hole here and there without costing us much without having to swing for the fences. I tend to think that deadline deals generally do not work out as well for teams that acquire those players during the year that they acquire them as they do by bringing in the player during the offseason and allowing him the chance to mesh with the team and define his role during Spring Training and during the early portion of the season. I've been an advocate of allowing Saunders the opportunity to play in AAA and provide him every opportunity to prove that he is ready to play at the big league level everyday. He has not proven that to me yet. Neither has Matt Tuiasosopo. I agree with the idea that adding to a team during the season is necessary and required. But I don't think you should be looking at making difference making additions. The additions should be more of a support and complement what is already there. You can do that either via trade or by having kids prove that they are ready in the minors. I'd rather rely on my minor league system to develop and produce players for my big league team. I'm not a big fan of free agency as a means to building your club. Supporting your club - yes. But not building it. There aren't a lot of pieces in the minor league system right now that are ready to step in at the big league level and start. As a general rule, I think it is hard to be a contender if you depend on too many guys getting their feet wet. We are already doing that with Adam Moore. How many more positions can you do that with? I'm also not the one that has said that Cliff Lee is only going to be here 1 year - that is others. But if he is here only 1 year, doesn't having him in the fold give you one of the best chances that you are going to have at winning when surrounded by Felix Hernandez? Isn't there a thought process that you have to prove to Felix that the organization is committed to winning and playing in October if you want to resign him? If you subscribe to those theories, then isn't your hand pushed to do everything possible to be a contender in 2010? And, is it wrong to have aspirations that being a contender means more than competing for winning a division and getting bounced in 3 or 4 games in the first round? |
| 87. By: banton on 12-30-2009 15:26:44 I agree with Edman. What we open the season with could be significantly different than what we have at the TD. If we are contenders, do not think for a minute that the Seattle brain trust will not spend the money to hit the playoffs running. And I would put our starting rotation (top 3 as it stands now) against NYY or Boston any day. Dmanc33, as much as I appreciate your fervor, I think that you are doing the FO a disservice by believing that they don't know the difference between the regular and post seasons. Really, these are some of the most respected people in baseball right now. But you crawl before you walk, and they are trying to get us a strong start for 2010. If we are truly players for the post season, you will see elements of the team change accordingly. |
| 88. By: marinerseric on 12-30-2009 15:44:21 I understand everything people here are trying to say, but this cliff lee trade only works if he wins the cy-young and we win the world series in my mind. I know its not the same as the Bedard trade, which at the time I wrote the same sentiments. But the theory is correct. With that said if Bedard does not come back, then his trade was a failure based of that statement alone. I don`t see how you count Ryan Rolland Smith as good enough to be a third starter unless there has been some signing I don`t know about. What we do need is another starter with the ability to pitch in the front end of the rotation. You see teams in baseball now who have three good tor starters make the playoffs. What still bugs me is the fact that Cliff Lee has not be introduced as a mariner, is this all a later formality or is something brewing? |
| 89. By: DMac33 on 12-30-2009 16:09:47 Pat: You may be the most literal person that I've ever run across. A statement gets made that the Mariners were 8-7 against Boston and New York (really 8-8) ... the premise of the statement is that the Mariners are good enough to beat those teams in October. Why else would the comment be made? In response, I break down the games by starting pitcher and it shows a clear trend that the Mariners record in the games started by the respective Top 3 starters of the other team was not very good and showed some serious issues. Of course I realize that those games are not necessarily 1 vs. 1, 2 vs. 2, etc. like you are going to get in October. You can only get those examples by getting there (with limited exceptions). I'd sure hope that somewhere along the line I've earned at least enough respect with my thoughts/ideas to suggest that I can grasp that concept. What I was simply getting at was the fact that the Mariners, and yes, the 2009 Mariners, struggled in games where they faced the top level starters of those teams. Who started in those games to me is irrelevant for what I was trying to get at. Which, apparently I needed to go even further into the numbers to satisfy you here. What I was trying to get at is that clearly what the Mariners had on offense in 2009 was not good enough to produce runs at a stable enough clip against these teams and pitchers. Without a significant upgrade in offense, and as of right now, I'd argue that while you have a bit of an upgrade in Figgins and Bradley, there are still enough holes in the lineup that suggests to me that this team won't be able to score runs in 2010 against these kind of pitchers without continued upgrades. And I'm not talking just a single upgrade - they still need 2 upgrades in my opinion. So, here's more detail for you since I guess it's required to satisfy you here: Sabathia had 3 starts against the Mariners. His season ERA was 3.37. His starts are as follows: 7/2/09: 5.2 IP, 10 H, 6 runs (all earned), 3 BB, 8 K, Season ERA to Date 3.85 (including Season ERA to date after the game to show whether or not the pitcher was scuffling a bit at this period or whether or not the Mariners essentially were getting more or less the norm of a pitcher - clearly, I'd suggest that this would be an abnormal start for Sabathia) 8/13/09: 8 IP, 3 H, 1 R (earned), 2 BB, 10 K, Season ERA to Date 3.64 (that's the kind of start that you aren't going to be getting a win against too often - regardless of who you start) 9/19/09: 7 IP, 4 H, 1 R (unearned), 2 BB, 8 K, Season ERA to Date 3.31 (again, another start that it doesn't matter who is pitching for you, most likely not going to be getting a win on that day given that production) Andy Pettite's 2 starts are as follows (note Season ERA of 4.16) 7/1/09: 7 IP, 6 H, 2 R (all earned), 1 BB, 5 K, Season ERA to Date of 4.25 8/14/09 (vs. RRS): 6 IP, 6 H, 2 R (all earned), 1 BB, 10K, Season ERA to Date of 4.09 (These seem to be very representative starts for Pettite and indicative of what you could expect in October if you faced him. Mariners would be hard pressed to win either of these games regardless of starting pitcher). AJ Burnett's 1 start was against Felix in the Ichiro walk-off game vs. Rivera: 9/18/09: 7 IP, 7 H, 1 R (earned), 3 BB, 6 K Maybe this is the most relevant of all the games as it was against Felix. This game is a loss for the Mariners minus the walk-off 2 run HR for Ichiro against Rivera. How many times do you expect that to happen? Jon Lester had 2 starts against the Mariners. His season ERA was 3.41. 5/15/09: 5.2 IP, 8 H, 5 R (all earned), 3 BB, 5 K, Season ERA to Date 6.51 (Lester was horrible to open the season and this was a continuation of that trend. I'd consider this to be an abnormal start for Lester). 7/5/09: 6.2 IP, 8 H, 4 R, 1 ER, 3 BB, 9 K, Season ERA to Date 4.16 (Defense victimized him a bit in this one - still, a pretty good outing that if you take away the defensive errors would find you hard pressed to beat most days). Josh Beckett had a single start against the Mariners: 5/16/09: 7 IP, 4 H, 3 R, 2 ER, 3 BB, 5 K (You may have some room against him to win this game if you were throwing an ace. This is the kind of game that you could win 3-2 ... but again, the margin for error is pretty slim here). With the exception of 1 of Sabathia's starts and 1 of Lester's starts, the offensive production was poor to putrid in these games. You need to produce at minimum 1-2 more runs per game against these kind of pitchers. The changes that have been made, while moving in the right direction, do not result in a 1-2 run per game difference versus these kind of pitchers. And that's what you need to beat them in October. And BTW, you are crazy Pat if you think Pettite isn't going to be in the Yankees rotation in October if he's healthy. The Vazquez move provided depth to the Yankee rotation (remember, it was essentially 3 deep last year on a consistent basis) and allows for the Yankees to go to 4 starters in October and not risk the 3-man rotation. Remember, if the Yankees lose Game 4 of the World Series, I think that there is a very good chance that the Phillies end up winning the series. |
| 90. By: jkcmason on 12-30-2009 16:11:40 DMac, I agree with you in the large part. What you are saying obviously makes sense. If we are going to win a world series we will have to matchup better with the Red Sox and Yankees. The major problem that we have is that we are (obviously) limitted in our teams budget. Which I am sure you understand. This in turn makes it so that we have to improve our team where the market allows us. With ~$15 million to spend we should not worry about adding a left fielder or DH now. Replacing the combination of Bradley/Langerhans/Saunders/Hall would not be as effective as replacing our 1B hole, 2B hole, or our SP hole. From the stats available it would not be as dramatic of an improvement. I do not think that we should worry about winning the World Series at this point. I think we should make the improvements that will most drastically improve this team and get us to the playoffs. When we are leading the division at the trading deadline (positive attitude), we can analyze our weakest points and attempt a trade with the assets that we have handy. At this point our major competition is the Angels, A's and Rangers. After 162 games it will be the Red Sox and Yankees. The major reason that I think that we shouldn't sign them now is that there are major questionmarks as to how productive the likes of Thome, Guerrero, Delgado and even Branyan will be this year. At the trade deadline we will also be able to take a more detailed look at how effective they have been this year and who would be the best to trade for. I don't see most of these players signing with the teams that will be serious contenders come the trading deadline and most of them and more players should be available when the deadline comes. |
| 91. By: shortstop9 on 12-30-2009 16:26:04 As far as 1B goes there are some valuable youg prospects out there that could be available because they are blocked by someone. Most can play defense much better than Carp and have more upside> Mat Gamel- Brewers Micah Hoffpauir-Cubs Travis Ishikawa-Giants Andy Marte-Indians Gabby Sanchez-Marlins Luke Scott-Orioles Jeff Larish-Tigers also the Rangers have a prospect that will push Chris Davis out soon. |
| 92. By: DMac33 on 12-30-2009 16:34:09 Banton: I think the front office (Jackie Z) knows the difference between the regular and the playoffs. I think the addition of Cliff Lee is Exhibit A in that regard. I'm not entirely sure that I can say that about past editions of the Mariners. There were some very clear flaws in the 1997 Mariner team in the postseason that went very much unaddressed throughout the year. While we all love the 2001 team, and who knows what would have happened had 9/11 never taken place, in hindsight, I'm not sure that I see their postseason "failures" as that surprising. Freddy Garcia was a higher-end pitcher in 2001. But the rest of the starters were in the above average range - definitely not the difference makers that you would have with some other teams. And, had we won the AL that year and beat the Yankees, would that team have been able to beat the double-headed monster that was Schilling and Johnson? I have my doubts. I think that the average fan (and I'm not saying that the average fan is on this site - but in general this is something that I've found lacking from most people that observe baseball - including people I consider to be very smart) misses the fact that while you need 25 contributors during the regular season, the postseason boils down to your best 18 or so players. It's why you'll never see me jump up and down about the contributions of a player like Ryan Langerhans. Nice player, good guy, provides a valuable role for the club. But he's not a difference maker in the grand scheme of things. Difference makers are hard to replace. Non-difference makers are commons - the names change but the production is roughly the same. In other words, baseball's version of the famous quote from Dazed and Confused "best thing about those high school girls is that I get older and they stay the same age." |
| 93. By: DMac33 on 12-30-2009 16:43:12 JK: There are definitely a lot of different ways to go about putting the final pieces together. I do agree with you in that it is very important to recognize that if you want to compete in the American League, you've got to have that front line starting pitching and it needs to be both quality and quantity. The Mariners are lucky in that they only have to really worry about being better over 162 games than the A's, Angels, and Rangers. That might mean 88 games. Might mean 92 games. Might mean 98 games. Who knows. But the goals for the regular season should IMO start and end with being a better team than those 3 teams. That's all that matters. After that, it's all about being positioned to win in October. The way I look at things, and by no means do I think it is the only way to look at it, is that given our resources in the minors, and our future needs (particularly if you take the stance like I do that you need to have 2-3 front end starting pitchers fronting the rotation and clearly that is going to cost some coin), you've got to protect some of your young assets and have them as cheap, cost effective members of your roster. Using them in trade, with the exception of pieces that you have that are either duplicative in nature or are blocked in their development I think needs to be looked at long and hard. Because of that, I'd much rather look at what I consider to be cost effective solutions in free agency if I can identify those kind of solutions. Those that raise the question that there is no guarantee that they will produce at a high level are absolutely correct. And if they don't, then I need to be able to have management's confidence to be able to address those issues at that time. And clearly, upper management needs to be on board with that plan. But given what I look at as the blueprint of the organization, the most critical element for future success (outside of the starting pitching) is the development and utilization of a strong minor league system to identify and establish players that can step into the big leagues and perform on a cost effective basis. Yes, there may be some years where the budget needs to be stretched if the holes that are filled through low risk - high reward options don't pan out. But in contrast, what is the cost of trading away a prospect that could one day plug such a hole and I then need to go out and continue to fill the hole through free agency? Lots of considerations obviously ... and why I have the utmost respect for how a MLB GM has to go about drawing up the organizational direction. |
| 94. By: JohnMcD on 12-30-2009 17:56:30 Luke Scott is not young |
| 95. By: JohnMcD on 12-30-2009 17:59:23 Or a prospect |
| 96. By: banton on 12-30-2009 18:11:15 "I'm not entirely sure that I can say that about past editions of the Mariners." But we are not talking about PAST editions of the Mariners! This the Z Mariners, and nothing else applies.... "I'd sure hope that somewhere along the line I've earned at least enough respect with my thoughts/ideas to suggest that I can grasp that concept." Not with me, not with statements that you have made. Marinerseric: "...this cliff lee trade only works if he wins the cy-young and we win the world series in my mind." you ARE kidding, right? You seriously believe that? |
| 97. By: DMac33 on 12-30-2009 18:30:54 Banton: Feeling is mutual then ... And BTW, congrats on taking a statement out of context. Remember, not understanding the past makes you bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. I challenge you to find a single instance where I've said anything regarding Jackie Z that has been overwhelmingly negative. I can tell you that I had many reservations as to whether or not the Mariners would hire him since he was my #1 choice to be hired and was stunned when they did that (made me question myself and whether my opinion was right to be honest). I've had many questions regarding what has been done with this franchise in the past 15 years or so before Jackie Z showed up. I've had few complaints, if any, since Jackie Z has been in charge. For whatever it is worth, I've been around baseball a good chunk of my life and somewhere along the way have had the opportunity to observe how a bunch of little things that don't show up in the stats and can't be measured make a huge difference. These are things you get when you get close to the game - and I'm not talking about watching the games on TV and sitting around coming up with ideas. This is what you get when you talk to people that play the game at a high level (whether that is the professional level, minor league level, college level, or even high school level). Regardless of the level, if you are competing at the highest of the levels at that level, then you find quickly that what separates teams/players aren't necessarily skills that are tangible - but it's a lot of intangible skill. My positions are pretty simple actually. I do think outside of the box at times though and I'm not a big fan of just accepting what is on the surface. I respect statistical analysis but understand its limitations. I don't know if I'm fortunate or unfortunate to have a degree in mathematics - I'm not sure I'd wish that kind of pain on anybody. But one of the good things about having that degree is that you do have an understanding of the power of numbers and the inherent limitations within them. So, excuse me if I don't believe that a statement such as "a run saved is equal to a run scored" is a completely accurate statement because I think that the statement is overly simplistic and not reflective of reality. Excuse me if I think that while useful, on-base percentage can give you some poor results if not utilized wisely. A bunch of high on-base percentage slap hitting guys aren't necessarily going to be as effective if they aren't properly supported (i.e. as many have proposed at times, is Ichiro a better hitter at times with multiple runners on base as it takes away a few of his tools to get on base in the bunt and the infield basehit). Perhaps I should apologize for having that opinion. Excuse me if I think that dominance in a pitcher is measured in large part not based on his velocity but by the ability of the hitter to get a good swing off of him. Excuse me if I think that there are guys that are better performers when all eyes are looking at them and that there are guys that retreat into a shell in the same situation. And believe me when I tell you that I think that there are a lot more statements that can be made that I think are important considerations. Some of these items can be measured by the numbers. But many of these questions can only be answered by observation and experience. |
| 98. By: slamminghard on 12-30-2009 19:05:27 frontstreetfan- jose's defense is elementary at best.. his continued substandard approach to defense i dont believe goes with jack or waks philosophy. i think they may have missed the bus on trading for another big arm. but in reality as long as they have felix and cliff with the bullpen they are good standing for the playoffs. i am sure one of the younger arms be it rowland or snell maybe someone else they will compete. i wonder how many conversations jack has had with japan on money.... adam laroche looks to be the most solid 1b we can pick up. i know alo of people like branyan but laroches defense is better and coupled with branyans back injury just not smart. branyan will probably be 4 mill cheaper. you however may get adam to sign cheaper with improved roster.. everyone wants to be a winner.. i dont know how many people have really sat back and thought about this though... its probably Griffeys last year and the mariners (jack) are trying to let him go out on top. to all the nay sayers that complained about resigning him.. go blanky blanky that idea... we have several scrubs that if he comes back inshape; which according to reports he wants to be 30 pounds lighter we might have fight for lf and dh. the lastest rumor on espn is that the Ms are looking at hudson... if we get a second baseman pray we trade lopez away. have a good night and happy new year |
| 99. By: jkcmason on 12-30-2009 19:05:38 DMac, I realize that you are never going to agree with me, but I am going to write this anyway. Trading for a bat to hit DH at the deadline will not require dealing away all of our minor league system or anywhere near it. Trading for Guerrero, Thome, or the likewise at the dealine will not cost us as much as signing one now that isn't worth the contract. $2 million is more than a prospect that could have upside and the remainder of a contract. What is the rush to sign Guerrero now? |
| 100. By: StandinPat on 12-30-2009 19:22:20 Dmac, your previous statement "statistics can be dangerous if used incorrectly" Which ironically enough you are doing now. Any pitcher's ERA in a handful of starts against the 09 M's is completely irrelevant to how that same pitcher might perform against the 2010 Mariners in October. I know your initial post on the matter was in part in response to someone else's, but still those numbers are useless going forward. We would be seeing different pitcher's matchups, and they'd be seeing a different Seattle team. "And BTW, you are crazy Pat if you think Pettite isn't going to be in the Yankees rotation in October if he's healthy" So its crazy that the 4 year younger, slightly better pitcher would be the Yankees 3rd starter in a playoff series.....ok... "can also gauge from some of your comments that you are content running Saunders, or a Hall/Langerhans combination" That's interesting because I never stated that, nor did I imply that. I simply said that if you are gonna make a move that bumps Saunders out of the lineup, then you'd better make sure you are getting the necessary improvement for the resources you are shelling out. In fact I even state that I'd like to see Luke Scott over Vlad, because he CAN play LF.....guess wanting a Scott, who would take playing time away from Saunders, is the same as being content with Saunders |
| 101. By: FWBrodie on 12-30-2009 22:11:51 Jason. Is it unfathomable to think that Ichiro could be traded sometime in the next year with Figgins now on board? Bonus question: what do you think Ichiro is worth in a trade? |
| 102. By: DRWheelock on 12-31-2009 00:14:13 Jason is there "any" chance Zimmerman could be available to Seattle? Would we have enough prospects to send to the Nats for him? I know you think Fielder and Gonzo are out of reach, but how do you feel about Seattle's chances of trading for Zimmerman? Here's the reason I ask: I've been "trying" to review all the teams offseasons plans/needs/issues, trying to come up with the most likely guys that would be valuable and "tradable" this offseason. I came up with Zimmerman that is worth a look. Here is what I found: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/09/offseason-outlook-wash "But the farm system remains unimpressive, so the Nationals will be bad for the next several years unless they decide to double the payroll. Should the Nationals trade Ryan Zimmerman? While he is the face of the franchise, his value is currently very high and he is signed through 2013. Trading him could cause that farm system ranking to improve in a hurry. To a lesser extent, Dunn, Willingham, and Lannan could bring in younger talent." Signed through 2013 for $45M 09:$3.325M, 10:$6.25M, 11:$8.925M, 12:$12M, 13:$14M Incredible D at 3B, and a power bat, and the kind of guy Z would go after. Checkout his UZR: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4220&position= RF Ichiro 2B Figgins LF Bradley 3B Zimmerman $6.25M DH VLAD $2M / Griffey 1B Branyan $3.5M CF Gutz SS Wilson C Wilson DAMN We'd still have enough in the budget to add a #3 SP too. Harang or Arroyo anyone? I'd settle for Sheets on a Harden type contract, and/or a Bedard low/low base with inning incentives. |
| 103. By: micahjr on 12-31-2009 03:44:32 The last 50 posts are what happens when none of the mods come in and tell people they are out of their mind. Miss you, Jason, and Chris. Please come back soon. All this watching juvenile rosterbation,and even more juvenile measurement contests makes me feel dirty. |
| 104. By: vandal08 on 12-31-2009 09:13:25 Zimmerman would probably cost us as much as Gonzo and more than fielder.... Hope you guys saw the Vandals win on the blue last night!!! |
| 105. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-31-2009 09:48:34 Is it time for me to take on a couple of mods to watch the threads on a regular basis? I'm just going to start banning people for LIFE. Make a bad suggestion, BANNED. Mistype a statistic, BANNED. That'll be fun. |
| 106. By: DMac33 on 12-31-2009 11:03:01 JK: There's no doubt that making a trade at the deadline isn't going to take out all of the minor league prospects. My thought though is that I'm not sure that the Mariners have enough prospects to really feel comfortable trading a guy here and there. I'd rather that they didn't do that for a year or two while the system gets built back up. But clearly, any trade made in June/July would be highly dependent on a myriad of factors, including number of teams interested in said player, contract terms, etc. |
| 107. By: csiems on 12-31-2009 11:12:38 How about an autodelete of posts longer than 15-20 lines? That could've helped this thread. |
| 108. By: DMac33 on 12-31-2009 11:22:59 Pat: I don't even know what to say to you anymore - can anybody make a point that you agree with? There's no doubt that I believe that statistics can be subject to limitations. And clearly, there is no way that I'd suggest that a handful of starts is reflective of a continued reality. And perhaps that is the rub here ... See, I'd argue that your calling out of the pitching lines from the '09 season from a handful of pitchers, pitchers that you'd expect to see in October, supports what I've been saying that statistics are great - but can have some limitations. There is no doubt that the number of starts made by these pitchers in '09 is not a statistically significant sample size - it's almost impossible to get that in baseball since you need a sample size of about 20-30 (depending on the nature of the sample that you are looking at). But, at some point, you have to start making some hypothesis about observations and statistics. Sometimes you don't have the ability to generate a large enough sample size - this is a great example. What you do have here is a small sample of a sample (in other words, the bigger sample is the 30+ starts that a pitcher makes during a year and the sample of the sample would be the starts made against a given team). At the end of a season, we do have a representative sample of what a pitcher is capable of doing - and with respect to the pitchers that I used in the examples, it is pretty clear that each of those pitchers have various elite, top level qualities (some moreso than others). The sample of the sample though is not statistically relevant - but is illustrative and does move in the direction of potentially establishing a trend. And that was pretty much my point there ... a point that I don't think is that hard to argue against in the grand scheme of things. I don't see how the Mariner offense, as currently constructed and without what I'd say being 2 significant upgrades, could be considered good enough to realistically have confidence in them scoring enough runs to be able to defeat pitchers of this caliber in October. That's my statement and opinion. I could just make the statement/opinion without providing any support for the opinion - what would your response be at that point? Are you taking any kind of position on Saunders at this point? Do you think he's ready to be run out in LF 5 out 7 days right now? Do you feel comfortable doing that - particularly from an offensive basis? Do you consider the thought of there being a "law of diminishing returns" being applicable to the defensive abilities of this team? If you are not convinced of Saunders, then please provide an example of someone who you'd be comfortable with that'd further address the weaknesses of this team? At this point, all I'm seeing is a lot of "nope, don't like it" with respect to thoughts/ideas without a lot of movement towards providing an "alternative viewpoint." I tend to be of the opinion that it's one thing to disagree with thoughts/opinions. But I also tend to believe that if one is going to disagree with thoughts/opinions, it's important for them to have alternative views to bring to the table. And, as for the addition of Vazquez and how it relates to Pettite, I firmly expect that it allows the Yankees to go to a 4 man rotation in October - something that they were not comfortable doing this October. I do expect that pitching form come September/October of Pettite and Vazquez surely will be a consideration. But with all things being equal, I don't think that the Yankees are going to punt Pettite's lenghty postseason experience and his ability to provide quality starts in those situations to the curb. You may recall that Vazquez has a reputation for having his struggle in high pressure situatiosn/starts - it was a problem in his previous stint in New York and also true in 2007 when Vazquez was with the White Sox. It makes logical sense for the Yankees to run a postseason of Sabathia, Burnett, Pettite, and Vazquez - that gives a left, right, left, right combination. And, it also gives them the luxury of running out a postseason veteran in Pettite in Game 7 if necessary compared to someone with limited postseason experience in Vazquez. |
| 109. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 11:25:33 Why would Washington trade Zimmerman? He's the face of the franchise. And if they were going to trade him, it would take a lot more than what Seattle has to offer. Not speaking for Jason, but there is virtually zero chance that Seattle and Washington could work out a deal. The idea that any team, including the Nationals, would be willing to give away their best players, isn't realistic. They won't win their division next season, but they should be a better team. |
| 110. By: PositivePaul on 12-31-2009 11:28:13 How about an autodelete of posts longer than 15-20 lines? That could've helped this thread. I think I'll program a little script that unless you're an admin around here, any text beyond, say, 140 characters (a la Twitter) is instantly turned into Pirate-ese... "Yar, wenches! We ortin' ta trade fer Gonzalez an' Pujols! Yer a Scallywag ya Gangplanker! Yar!" |
| 111. By: DMac33 on 12-31-2009 11:45:01 Heaven forbid people having intelligent discussions at a detailed level and/or having some passion ... Whatever ... it's not my site - if those are the rules of the play yard ... so be it. The double-edged sword of a message board: 1) Put an opinion out without much support for the opinion and people tear those opinions up for a lack of detail 2) Put an opinion out there with support for the opinion and people complain because of length. As with most things in life - pretty hard to satisfy everybody. |
| 112. By: PositivePaul on 12-31-2009 11:47:36 From Jason: Putting your offseason rosters and plans in one post is not going to be allowed. The comments are too long and stagnates conversation. Nobody wants to read 1000-word comments, and we already know who is on the roster NOW. If you want to talk about what you'd do from here on out, fine. But if you need to post the entire lineup and/or rotation in order to show results for your ideas, I hear SeattleHardball has room for that. Prospect Insider does not. Keep you comments shorter, and readable. Thanks! |
| 113. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-31-2009 11:54:58 DMac33, Nobody on this end is saying you can't put your opinions out. They just all don't need to be in the same comment. If you need several hundred to thousands of words to support that opinion, start your own site and do it there. Otherwise, one thing at a time. Maybe talk about one position at a time instead of five, or the entire roster or lineup structure. And it's not just you, but you are the one speaking out about it. |
| 114. By: DRWheelock on 12-31-2009 12:01:29 Sorry DMac but I've stopped reading your posts over a week ago, and browse past them, because it drives me nuts reading posts this long. AND I even thought that I had a horrible tendency to be long winded...holy smokes. I have a tendency to personally post lineup & rotations frequently. I will watch that going forward. Thanks for the reminders Jason! |
| 115. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 12:07:46 One thing to consider. Most of us are probably working, I know I am. I can't afford to spend too much time reading a post. So, if it's too long, I try to catch the basics, and move on. |
| 116. By: PositivePaul on 12-31-2009 12:10:03 Not picking on you, per se, DMac33 - but certainly this site isn't really a "message board" (but I do acknowledge this particular post does invite more of that). Just trying to keep things a little reined in around here. None of us 'round here like to be mean (well, at least I don't :-), certainly, but it does get hard for people to follow the conversation when it gets bogged down by long, heated discourse. I'm one of the most verbose people I know, so I know how hard it is to rein it in when I'm passionate about something. For the sake of all the readers/visitors, though, we all have to be mindful of what we post in the comments. We all have tempers, though. Jason's a bit more direct and to-the-point than I am, so let's all try not to piss him off :-) |
| 117. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-31-2009 12:33:49 Too late, Paul. The nerve you have! I'm officially ticked off. Not really. |
| 118. By: hawks02 on 12-31-2009 12:42:50 Jason, Have you heard anything as noted on ussmariner about the M's "kicking the tires" on Francisco Liriano? Anything to it as far as are they just looking or is there anything more than just inquiring? |
| 119. By: ernier on 12-31-2009 12:47:20 Jason - have you heard any rumblings about the M's kicking the tires on Fransico Liriano? USSM has a post about it today and mentions a rumor about some sort of Lopez for Liriano trade. If true, do you think it's a good idea? |
| 120. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 13:13:51 I don't put much faith in rumors on USSM. They tend to be more hypothesis, then substance. |
| 121. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-31-2009 13:19:07 There's nothing more to the Liriano thing than there is to anything else. The ONLY reason for the Twins to trade Liriano is if they get good value for him, otherwise, it's selling low. This is probably a make or break year for Liriano's status as a frontline starter, and unless the Twins get somewhat blown away, I can't see it happening. Can the M's blow them away? Maybe, but lets pretend we're the Twins here. 1. We're trying to contend in a winnable division 2. We kept Cuddyer for 10+ mil, made the deal for JJ Hardy to prove it. 3. If we trade Liriano, we're down a frontline starter, not a back-end guy. Signing Jarrod Washburn doesn't replace Liriano, despite his FIP and xFIP numbers both landing in the 4.5 to 4.8 range. 4. If the Twins are to win the Central, Liriano has to be better than that, and there's reason to believe he will be. The pitching rotation won't get better by trading Liriano to Seattle, and he's not making any money to where the financial savings would allow GM Bill Smith more money to play with in free agency. 5. While Jose Lopez is a bit of a fit in Minnesota, it would take Carlos Triunfel and Michael Saunders for me to trade Liriano away. Maybe a reliever such as White or Kelley, too. Otherwise, I'm selling three years Liriano for not nearly enough upside to punt some production (swapping Liriano for the best inexpensive FA SP on the market, such as Washburn) in 2010. Far too many obstacles in the way. I just don't see it happening. Plus, the Mariners have kicked the tires on just about every starting pitcher in the game. Heck, they checked with LAD about Chad Billingsley, Arizona about Dan Haren, Florida about Josh Johnson and Ricky Nolasco and with Baltimore on Jeremy Guthrie. I still think a free agent is more likely than a trade at this point, but you can certainly see why a trade for an inexpensive arm is a better idea. It leaves the payroll money for bats. If they can get two, and a No. 3 starter, the Mariners might be World Series contenders. |
| 122. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-31-2009 13:25:35 Edman, I can assure you that if Dave says he heard that, he heard it, and it's as reliable as it gets. His Luke Scott rumor was serious, and could still happen, but that's something I got from a third party after Dave had already posted that. I haven't heard anything on Liriano, but I have been out of the loop a bit for the past 3-4 days with the holidays. If you read the posts, Dave specifies whether it's just an idea or it's something he's heard. This was something he's heard. So this time it's not hypothesis only. |
| 123. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 13:46:12 Like all rumors at this time of year, it takes little to start one. And, all it has to do is get a little start on the internet, and suddenly it's much bigger than it ever was. |
| 124. By: rotoenquire on 12-31-2009 14:06:01 without looking at trades. U sign O. Hudson, X. Nady Bring Back R. Branyan For hitting Pitching U sign J. Washburn or B. Sheets C Moore, Johnson 1B Lopez, Branyan 2B Hudson, Lopez SS Wilson 3B Figgins RF Ichiro CF Gutierrez LF X. Nady, Bradley DH Griffey, Branyan, Bradley SP Lee SP Felix SP Sheets/Washburn SP RRS SP Snell A fastly better team than last year and I believe payroll would be smaller as well from last year. |
| 125. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 14:17:38 From what I read, Nady might not be ready to start the season. So I'm not so sure I'd rush out to sign him. One thing seems clear to me, there are going to be many unhappy Free Agents who are going to have to accept much less than they hoped for. There is a ton of mediocre players in that market. And, few that stand out. There's going to be a lot of activity in late January. Players are going to be scrambling for work. And, I suspect that Jack isn't going to move any sooner than he has to. He appears to be a patient guy. I have a lot of doubt that Sheets will be in the AL. He sees himself as an NL pitcher. Money talks, but if he doesn't think he'll succeed in the AL, when it gets down to comparing deals, if there's one from an NL team, I bet he takes it. |
| 126. By: micahjr on 12-31-2009 15:22:16 Don't know what it is, but I have this irrational aversion to trading Triunfel. I think he is our 3rd basemen of the future, and trading him now, at age 19, is selling extremely low, especially after an injury shortened season. If we can get Liriano without selling off Triunfel, I pull the trigger in most situations. The player I hope somebody is interested in is Tui, also for some irrational reason. |
| 127. By: csiems on 12-31-2009 16:36:57 @PositivePaul #110 Edgaaarrrr forever! Seriously, though, pirate jokes are far less funny to me since real ones started to exist in Somalia. Less funny to me in that they have less funny accents now. |
| 128. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 16:37:34 Other than a few reporters around the game speculating, as far as I can tell, Jack has given no indication that Triunfel is available. Sure, anyone's available. But, I doubt he'd be willing to give him up for anything less than a really good deal. I disagree about Tui. He's still relatively young and now is not the time to trade him. |
| 129. By: d2ret on 12-31-2009 17:14:48 Re: 126 & 128 I agree, now would be selling low on both prospects, but it should not be said that 'now is not the time' to trade somebody. There are always trade low, for trade low situations and I actually believe those deals to always be the most interesting. |
| 130. By: d2ret on 12-31-2009 17:24:10 Hardy for Gomez is a good example this offseason |
| 131. By: d2ret on 12-31-2009 17:26:44 Yes I realize those were players who already had a chance in the majors, but my main point is sell low for sell low is intriguing, ESPECIALLY with a guy you trust in scouting as much as Jack Z. Thank God for Jack Z. Seriously |
| 132. By: d2ret on 12-31-2009 17:30:08 He might be able to take advantage of a bad scouting front office. I guess thats what you your kind of saying with, "But, I doubt he'd be willing to give him up for anything less than a really good deal" though Edman. Sorry for the quadruple posts |
| 133. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 17:42:47 No, I'm saying that Triunfel has impact player potential, and that Jack most likely recognizes that. Selling low on him with virtually no experience in the upper minors is not something a smart GM would do. He has some very special abilities that for a middle infielder, you don't give up on too soon. Would he include him in a deal if someone came along and offered a legitimate #3 starter? I dunno, but he'd certainly listen. There are so many variable in speculation, it's really kind of senseless to deal in it. But, I doubt you'd see Jack deal him for anything less than immediate help for this year and beyond. |
| 134. By: Rudolf on 12-31-2009 17:50:31 Triunfel, Saunders and Kelly for Liriano? Yuck. Maybe Lopez and Kelly. Free agency sounds like the way to go. |
| 135. By: DRWheelock on 12-31-2009 18:22:05 Jason I have to say I think you're way off on what it would take to land Liriano! "Carlos Triunfel and Michael Saunders for me to trade Liriano away. Maybe a reliever such as White or Kelley, too." In NO WAY will Triunfel be included in a Liriano trade maybe Lopez & Saunders, but there's a LOT of risk we'd be taking on with Liriano. I really like the thought of a Lopez for Liriano trade, but don't agree it's going to take a package like that to land him. Before the Cliff Lee trade, what prospect would you have "guessed" that Seattle would have to send in trade to land Lee? I think you would thrown all of our top prospects out there, and then said that we don't have what it takes to pull off a Cliff Lee trade (like you're saying about Gonzo and Fielder). Maybe we don't have what it takes to land a Gonzo or Fielder or Zimmerman, but honestly...what I've seen in Z ... if anyone could figure it out my money is on the Z Man! 2 months to ST, so we will all soon find out what Z has up his sleeves the remaining last stretch of the offseason. Go Mariners! |
| 136. By: Edman on 12-31-2009 18:45:11 IMHO, Liriano has too many health question marks to trade for, if the price is not right. You might be able to buy low, if Minnesota felt a need to move him. But, I don't think there is. Time isn't against them, unless they believe he won't recover. |
| 137. By: Willmore on 12-31-2009 20:39:02 @csiems #127 You do realize that the old pirate jokes were about real pirates who raped, pillaged and murder hundreds of thousands of people over the preceeding 2000 odd years? The new pirates aren't new, there were pirates in the 80s and 90s, though they usually just kidnapped people (predominantly in the amazon delta region). These pirates are news because they go after big ships, nothing else. Also, these african pirates aren't that scary. They rarely kill people, since, you know, noone pays for corpses and they usually get a ransome, so they are pretty content with just holding ships and crew in relative comfort - no need to get on the bad side of your business partners. |
| 138. By: Lamda on 12-31-2009 21:05:09 Wheelock - I think you miss the point - Lee HAD to be traded or at the very least - needed to be traded whereas the other people you are talking about don't, not yet. Therefor the asking price has to be higher than normal. You don't throw in everything to get a 1 year rental who's expecting top of the top dollar in his next contract. I believe both Zimmerman and Liriano have 3-4 years left on their contracts and Gonzo 2. Gonzo will have to be traded next year but this year allows them the luxury of demanding more than a premium package. While I disagree with Jason on that we don't have what it takes to get either Fielder or Gonzo, I do agree it will take a lot more than what we gave away for Lee to get any of the rest as the situations are different. |
| 139. By: DRWheelock on 12-31-2009 23:23:34 Lamda - I usually agree with Jason 99.9% of the time, and even though I DONT want to believe that we don't have what it takes to land Gonzo or Fielder...unfortunately he's 'probably' right. Zimmerman is the same, and would take a mint to land, but the Nats farm system is the worse in MLB. We probably don't have enough for Zimmerman either, but you can bet Z has already put feelers out there to see what it would take "if" possible. Regarding Liriano though, I'm not buying that it's going to take any of our top prospects to land him, especially when the Twins can use a 25HR 2B for $2.3M on the Cheap. Lopez would compliment their already high OBP lineup, so they don't need him to be a high OBP guy, whereas there is a lot of risk behind acquiring Liriano. Also, many people are stating that why would the Twins trade for Lopez, when they can have an FanGraph comparable 2B out of Hudson or Felip Lopez. My comment is that Hudson and Felipe is going to cost $5-8M this year, while Jose Lopez is only $2.3M. That alone will attract the Twins, because they are VERY frugile with their salaries. |
| 140. By: Chris Crawford on 01-01-2010 02:54:03 Ok, so first of all, the "Jason there's no way theyre going to do this or that" is dumb. Just because you don't think it should happen doesn't mean it won't happen. And as nicely as I can say this....well, never mind. But you should get it just from the prior statment. Second, we love that everyone likes to post stuff, but some of these are longer than my college thesis papers. And...I can barely read, so...if we could go ahead and try to not repeat the same stuff over eight posts of over 900 words, I think we'd all appreciate it. Third, the personal attacks are getting annoying. Everyone here is able to turn on a computer and knows where the buttons are, so I assume they went through pre-school and learned basic manners at some point. Its enough, I've hinted at it, but I will start asking people to watch Washington State 2009 football games if you don't play nice. Finally, happy new year. |
| 141. By: PositivePaul on 01-01-2010 02:58:46 Happy New Year & New Decade folks! Go M's In Twenty-Ten!!! Ouch, Chris, 2009 Wazzu FB games? That's almost more torturous than watching a Paris Hilton show... |
| 142. By: Coug1990 on 01-01-2010 10:49:55 Obviously I am a Cougar fan, but even I stopped watching games this year. What have we in the state of Washington done to deserve our sporting fates the last few years? The Sonics were gawd awful for years and then get stolen and taken to Okey Town. The Seahawks have been bad for the last two years and are getting worse every game. Currently, they along with St. Louis are the two worse teams in the NFL . Before Sarkisian, the huskies had been bad for the better part of a decade capped off by losing every single game in 2008. The Cougars have been overwhelmingly bad for the last two years and are embarrassing to watch. Before Zduriencik, the Mariners had been a joke and 2008 was perhaps the worse season in Mariner history with a triple double: 100 losses and 100 million payroll. Again, what did we all do to deserve this? |
| 143. By: Coug1990 on 01-01-2010 10:52:08 Make that a double triple: 100 losses and 100 million payroll. |
| 144. By: csiems on 01-01-2010 13:48:13 "You do realize that the old pirate jokes were about real pirates..." Yes, but old pirates in our culture have come to represent scandalous rogues who dress flamboyantly and talk funny. We've created pirate-themed amusement park rides, pirate holidays, and a few years ago the most popular Halloween costume was patterned after a lovable pirate character played by Johnny Depp. In comedy, context is everything. Historical distance allows the subject matter to be made humorous. Sort of like when The Simpsons makes a joke about the Irish--a generation ago, those jokes would have been racist. Has Z made anymore moves yet? I want to talk about baseball again. |
| 145. By: StandinPat on 01-03-2010 20:37:26 "I don't even know what to say to you anymore - can anybody make a point that you agree with?" Two things, 1) I Agree with plenty that's posted around here 2) I disagree with most of what you post. We obviously differ philosophically on how this team should be constructed, or what the more important factors of that construction are, which is fine, but don't tell other people how you're entitled to your own opinion and don't need to change it, but then act like others are crazy for differing from yours. "Are you taking any kind of position on Saunders at this point? Do you think he's ready to be run out in LF 5 out 7 days right now?" I think I'm higher on Saunders than most and think he could be slightly below average at the plate next year, which coupled with his defense in LF would make him a pretty solid player making almost no money. "Do you consider the thought of there being a "law of diminishing returns" being applicable to the defensive abilities of this team?" Not sure I really buy this concept, especially when defense along with pitching, are the two parts of run prevention. I don't think anyone would argue that the M's would be better with another starter(better run prevention), so why would improving our defense(better run prevention) not hold the same value. Also, if you remember, the M's got stellar defense out of LF last year, so Saunders is just maintaining that level, not actually improving apon it. "please provide an example of someone who you'd be comfortable" Like the 3 times I mentioned Luke Scott? "all I'm seeing is a lot of "nope, don't like it" with respect to thoughts/ideas without a lot of movement towards providing an "alternative viewpoint."" Then you're not doing a very good job of reading/comprehending my posts. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox |