| By Chris Crawford |  | By 02-01-2010 |
With the addition of Ryan Garko, the M's lineup -- particularly against left-handed pitching -- has improved, but has also brought about numerous questions.
Youre going to see Garko more than likely play 1B and DH vs lefties, which would mean you would have a bench of backup catcher, Hannahan, Griffey, and Langerhans.
I think it's fairly obvious what the problem with that is.
I've seen some people mention the possibility of breaking camp with eleven pitchers, and that Jack Zduriencik alluded to an eleven man staff being a legitimate option.
While I believe an eleven man staff is ideal, I'll believe the Mariners carry said staff when I see it. The M's will not have the luxury of not needing a 5th starter like they have had in April's past, and we see so many cases of dead-arm or injuries that it almost seems improbable to not break with 12 pitchers. I really hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it very much.
The roster is better, but it certainly seems like another move is coming via the trade route, major or minor.
what-garko-means
Comments
The following 66 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: usabaseballfan on 02-01-2010 15:17:54 I know you are not going to speculate too far about what the additional future move would be, but why do you think this indicates another move being made? What KIND of deal would you envision? Moving Lopez? Adding another starter? |
| 2. By: Chris Crawford on 02-01-2010 15:26:12 Well I'm still along the lines of thinking that adding another SP is all but guaranteed, but as far as the next roster move it could be a number of things. Including a Lopez move. I just get the feeling that they're building towards something. Maybe its big, maybe it's not. We'll see. |
| 3. By: FWBrodie on 02-01-2010 15:54:22 I think the Mariners either replace Lopez with a second baseman who can also backup SS or go hard after an upgrade over Hannahan. With Figgy at third and Tui close to the bigs, Hannahan is just in the way in my eyes. His value is on the field as a third baseman, but I think as it stands now he's likely to be used more often at SS resting Jack Wilson. If Tui is killing it in ST or down in AAA, the Mariners really don't have room for him barring an injury because they depend on Hannahan to backup SS and they won't carry two backup 3B. |
| 4. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 16:52:47 I doubt Lopez goes anywhere. Figgens can play short and Hannahan can move to third, in a pinch. If Wilson is hurt for a long period of time, then they'd have to do a longer-term solution. I do believe both Woodward and Josh Wilson are still on the roster. Everyone keeps on trying to move Lopez, callint it "a feeling".....more like wishful thinking, IMO. |
| 5. By: bilbo on 02-01-2010 17:04:11 If Byrnes is healthy and has a good spring then Langerhans goes to AAA or waivers, otherwise an 11 man staff is necessary. I could see them starting with Langerhans in AAA and bringing him up when everyone is fully stretched making the 11 man staff more realistic. |
| 6. By: ernier on 02-01-2010 17:25:43 It's nice to see that Garko has a career 1.090 OPS at Safeco field with 3 HR in 35 PA’s. I know that’s a very small sample size, but at least he’s had some success at Safeco. |
| 7. By: jgstecker on 02-01-2010 18:26:11 As of right now, Langerhans is off the roster unless the team carries 11 pitchers. Based on what Z promised Byrnes to bring him in, its pretty clear he's on the team. My own "feeling" is that the offense is done and that its going to be imperfect. I don't like the way the bench is constructed, but that's the way Wak wants it and that's the way it is. |
| 8. By: pwhit44 on 02-01-2010 18:32:07 I like this move if it is a 1B platoon. In that scenario, the lineup becomes Ichiro followed by eight RH hitters (Bradley DH, Byrnes LF, Garko 1B). Garko will also be a useful late-game pinch hitter against a lefty reliever. Griffey against righties... |
| 9. By: pwhit44 on 02-01-2010 18:34:00 jgstecker- The offense is imperfect, but it's not bad. Given the platoons, the lineups are actually pretty solid. |
| 10. By: pwhit44 on 02-01-2010 18:39:14 I might get killed for this but I think it's relevant to the thread. VS RHP: L Ichiro RF L Figgins 3B L Bradley LF L Griffey DH R Lopez 2B L Kotchman 1B R Gutierrez CF R Moore/Johnson C R Wilson SS VS LHP: L Ichiro RF R Figgins 3B R Bradley DH R Garko 1B R Lopez 2B R Gutierrez CF R Byrnes LF R Moore/Johnson C R Wilson SS I think those lineups (the actual order is obviously fluid) are better a little better than we think. They aren't world beaters. But I think things are coming together just fine. |
| 11. By: Chris Crawford on 02-01-2010 18:50:45 Perfectly legitimate for the thread, rosterbate and lineup speculate away. |
| 12. By: pwhit44 on 02-01-2010 18:57:23 Thank you, kind sir. Also, for the record, I'm with you -- I feel like this whole Byrnes/Garko platoon-ey thing is a backup plan that they are putting in place ahead of time. If they can't swing a big ol' trade, then at least we have this pretty good platoon-ey lineup scenario that. If a deal is struck, you simply cut one or two of your super-cheap guys (Byrnes, Garko, Langerhans, etc.). This buys them time with a fine product going into the season. It's a good plan. And in the mean time, I really do like that righty-heavy lineup against lefties. |
| 13. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 19:05:04 Why is reality so hard to grasp? Eleven-man pitching staffs are extremely rare. I read on USSM, Dave's piece that they must carry another outfielder, in case Gutierrez crashes into the wall. OK, let's say the worst happens. Byrnes could fill in for one game or less. Figgens could move to CF, in an absolute pinch. But no, the example he picks is that Griffey would have to play LF, in the worse possible scenario. I'm sorry, is there a rule where players can't be called up from Tacoma during the season? So, Seattle's gonna carry an extra bat, just in case the most unlikely situation happens? They're going to worry about the results of one unlikely game? Defense isn't that valuable. Worse comes to worse, you try your best to get though the game, then make roster adjustments. Were they forced to put Griffey in LF when Chavez got injured? There are bigger worries that what if the unthinkable happenes. If it does, chances are Jack's going to have to be creative one more time. |
| 14. By: Ianyo on 02-01-2010 19:36:54 Edman: One thing. It's Figgins, not Figgens. |
| 15. By: Edman on 02-01-2010 19:59:10 I sit corrected. |
| 16. By: Greybear54 on 02-01-2010 21:42:07 The absolute beauty of this is that Z got BOTH Byrnes and Garko for under 1 mil--combined. We don't know for sure what the state of the budget is, but it does appear that there should be some decent money left. Washburn isn't a great option, especially considering that his knee went bad last year and I haven't heard of him having surgery over the winter to fix whatever the problem was. BUT--if you think Wash could come back and give us what he did the first half of last season, then bringing him and Bedard BOTH back would make some sense. Bedard probably won't be game-ready until at least July, maybe August. Which is about the time Washburn's knee should be going south again. At that point you either slide Washburn back to fifth starter or put him on the 60 day DL and go with Bedard for the last part of the season. If Washburn's knee holds up past July, that's just gravy. Washburn was rumored to be talking to Minnesota, but nothing seems to be coming out of that rumor. IF you could get Washburn for about 5 mil and Bedard for 2.5 mil, it could work. |
| 17. By: JHamlin22 on 02-01-2010 23:19:18 No. Please not Bedard. Do you guys have a short memory? Even if it's a 1 year deal for cheap. No. Can you imagine if we still had Sherrill and Jones and Tillman? No. Not Bedard. Bad memories. Would MUCH rather go with Washburn. At least he is a good guy. I know good guys don't win you games, but still. It's Erik Bedard. |
| 18. By: DKulich44 on 02-01-2010 23:43:33 JHamlin22, First off, what did Bedard have to do with losing Jones, Sherrill, and Tillman besides be the other half of the trade? It's not like he was involved in the decision making process. Second, half a year of Bedard will probably be worth more than a whole year of Washburn, being that Bedard is good and Washburn is not. Third, Bedard should theoretically come much cheaper than Washburn due to the injuries. Third, I didn't know you had a relationship with Bedard or Washburn to know that they're "good guys" or "bad guys" but that's pretty cool. If I remember correctly, it was Washburn that earned the name "The Bus", because he wasted no time blaming other teammates for his bad outings. Bedard might not have been the best interview, but with some of the questions he gets asked, I don't blame him. And the whole not tough thing is ridiculous too as he tried to play through injury (which I don't condone, obviously). I can see the pros for wanting stability in Washburn, but you do realize Bedard is the vastly superior pitcher, right? |
| 19. By: DKulich44 on 02-01-2010 23:44:34 Haha oops, had two "thirds" in my last post, because I added one. Fourth one should read "fourth" or "lastly". |
| 20. By: Edman on 02-02-2010 01:33:23 JHamlin22, blaming Bedard for that trade is silly. When he did pitch, he pitched very well. He just couldn't stay healthy. He'd have been right up there with Lee, had he been healthy. If you can had half a year of what he showed in Seattle, at a decent price, it's worth it. |
| 21. By: Ballspiker on 02-02-2010 10:02:47 Regarding the idea that what Z is doing now is some sort of backup plan, I think we need to consider a couple of things: 1) Although just platoon-worthy, the guys being brought in are contributors in needed areas. They're not replacement level players who have a heartbeat. These guys are clearly part of the plan, which is to actually play splits and platoon. This increases the team's chances of winning. 2) If you're a free agent in 2011 and Z comes calling, saying you're a good fit and part of what he wants to build in Seattle, are you more likely to sign if: a) He has a history of signing guys who make the roster and actually play as they were signed to do? or b) He went out last year, signed a bunch of free agents and unceremoniously dropped them off the MLB roster a couple of weeks later because a trade materialized that he'd been playing for all along? In other words, credibility goes a LONG way in this industry. Jack's not going to blow his credibility over a handful of $500K contracts. The team still adds a #3-type starter for sure. But I think the optimism is overflowing a bit if you think that everything he's done is just a backup plan. |
| 22. By: DMac33 on 02-02-2010 10:31:21 I had put some more detailed numbers in the Byrnes thread, but I do think it is important to keep in mind that Kotchman has been effective against lefties throughout his career (see the '07 and '08 seasons - last year was a total bust all the way around) and that the right side of the plate is where Bradley is weaker from. I'm not saying that Kotchman will start against all lefties or that Bradley will start against all lefties either. Just saying that it wouldn't shock me if at least in that area you aren't looking at a strict platoon. You might see the following lineups: Against RHP: LHP - Lineup 1 LHP - Lineup 2 1) Ichiro, RF 1) Ichiro, RF 1) Ichiro, RF 2) Figgins, 3B 2) Figgins, 3B 2) Figgins, 3B 3) Bradley, LF 3) Bradley, DH 3) Gutierrez, CF 4) Gutierrez, CF 4) Gutierrez, CF 4) Garko, DH 5) Griffey, DH 5) Garko, 1B 5) Lopez, 2B 6) Lopez, 2B 6) Lopez, 2B 6) Byrnes, LF 7) Kotchman, 1B 7) Byrnes, LF 7) Kotchman, 1B 8) Catcher 8) Catcher 8) Catcher 9) Wilson, SS 9) Wilson, SS 9) Wilson, SS In particular with the LHP lineup, the presence of Garko brings in a high .800 to low .900 OPS presence in the middle of the order for those ABs - that's the kind of presence you want in the middle of your order. Byrnes is also a guy that you can throw into your lineup and get above average ABs against the lefties. Against the RHPs, the top of the order is going to have an on-base emphasis to it to put people on base for the middle of the order. The key for the middle of the order will be at minimum to get the ball into play and not have unproductive outs. Neither scenario results in what you'd on the surface of being a great offense. But they do have a chance to be an average offense. When you combine average offense with perhaps the best pitching/defense in the league, you should be in good shape. As for the pitching issue, I'd much rather have Bedard in place for 1/2 of a season than Washburn. At some point, you have to look at what you need to win in October. Washburn IMO doesn't help us win in October. He may marginally help us get to October ... but I'm not sure he's an upgrade over a guy like Fister or Vargas over a half of a season and 10-15 starts max. If you can get a healthy Bedard back in place by summer and get him to be the 3rd wheel in the rotation, even if he's only able to give you 6 innings before turning it over to the pen, those 6 innings are generally going to be pretty good, elite type innings. Running out a rotation of Felix, Lee, and Bedard in an October situation definitely would give the Mariners the pitching edge against any team they run up against, particularly when the pens are included. There are some other pitchers that I could also be ok with, but I do think that what Bedard brings to the table might not be such a bad thing to wait on if you have had conversations with him that suggests that he's willing to come back when healthy. |
| 23. By: DMac33 on 02-02-2010 10:32:04 Sorry for the formats in the lineup above - I promise that I tried to format them so that they didn't come out like that. |
| 24. By: JHamlin22 on 02-02-2010 10:33:50 I never blamed Bedard for the trade. Try reading my post again. I said it brings back bad memories of the trade. If Bedard can be so valuable and isn't harmful to the team at all in the clubhouse, why hasn't he been offered a contract by anyone yet? Reasons are... 1) He won't be available until the 2nd half of the season at the EARLIEST. 2) There is a GREAT chance he will just end up back on the DL again. If I remember correctly, he hasn't gone a season without going on the DL at least once. 3) Who says he can bounce back from this surgery and be the same pitcher he was before? 4) Nobody likes him. Nobody. I can't count how many times they would show Bedard sitting at the end of the bench all by himself, nobody around him. Ever notice when the Mariners had a walkoff hit, everyone would rush the field except Bedard? I am not saying Washburn would be a good pitcher and a big upgrade for us, I am just saying I would rather have a full season of Washburn then a half season of an injury plagued, 5 innings at most pitched each game, Erik Bedard. You know what you are going to get with Washburn. With Bedard, you just don't know. Bedard's fall from grace ranks up there with the worst ever. Before the Mariners traded for him, he was being compared to Johan Santana. I specifically remember Peter Gammons writing an article that the Mariners got a better deal trading for Bedard than the Mets got for trading for Johan Santana because Bedard could put up Santana like numbers for a much cheaper price. How did that work out for us? Edman - You think Bedard could put up Cliff Lee numbers if healthy? Seriously? Even when Bedard was healthy, he can only pitch 5 innings or 100 pitches at max. Sure, his ERA looks good, but whenever he pitches you have to have your bullpen completely ready because they will have to end up pitching at least 4 innings in the games Bedard pitches. |
| 25. By: DMac33 on 02-02-2010 10:54:19 JHamlin: While I'm not going to debate with you that you are only going to get 100 pitches from Bedard, and that generally means 6 innings max, because that is pretty much an accepted reality, I find it interesting that you talk about having a "completely rested bullpen" in his starts. If he is pitching on days following Felix and Lee, doesn't one expect that the pen is going to be fairly fresh since you can normally bank on those guys going 7 or 8 innings a large percentage of starts? Plus, if you are only trying to cover 3 innings out of your pen on a given night, if the first guy has things going pretty well, there's nothing that suggests that he might not be able to give you 2 innings over 30 pitches or so and that leads you right on in to your closer and you've used 2 of your 7 pen arms in a given night. That's pretty reasonable. |
| 26. By: JHamlin22 on 02-02-2010 11:03:05 DMac33: Yeah, that is if you get the 100 pitches from Bedard. There were way too many times he wouldn't even get to 5 innings and it would take 5 or 6 innings from the bullpen to complete the game. |
| 27. By: DMac33 on 02-02-2010 11:31:00 4 of Bedard's 15 starts last year went less than 5 innings with 3 of those 4 taking place in the last 4 starts of the year that he made. It's not unreasonable to suggest that his injury may have had an impact on those last starts. He pitched 6 or more innings in 6 of the 15 starts. The moral is that if he's someone that can give you an elite level of 5-6 innings per start while pitching at a sub 3.00 ERA (like he did last year - only 2 of his 15 starts saw him give up 3 runs in a game and never did he give up more than 3 runs), then you turn that over to your pen and expect them to close the deal. If you think towards October (and yes, I realize you have to get there before you worry about it), if he can give you that kind of performance in a start or two during the series, then you are going to have a chance to win some 3-2 or 4-3, etc. kind of games. That's the goal. He'll give you a chance to win when he takes the mound. |
| 28. By: Edman on 02-02-2010 11:53:21 I did the same and came up with the same results. If you look at his two years prior, in Baltimore, he had many 100+ pitch games. Injuries happen. I'm betting JHamlin was not a supporter of the Bedard trade from the beginning, and continues to carry that flag. If Bedard can help you to the playoffs, with half a season at a reasonable price, Jack would be a fool to rule him out. |
| 29. By: DMac33 on 02-02-2010 12:39:50 And Edman, the fact of the matter is that a healthy Bedard is a far better option IN THE PLAYOFFS than really just about anybody else that we can go grab at this point. The big question that Jackie Z has to juggle is whether or not the team has enough to wait for Bedard to get healthy enough to slot into that role and piece together things with a Fister/Vargas to start the season or if they really need that top of the line #3 starter that can come in from Day 1. I guess it really depends on what your projections are for Texas and the Angels are this year. |
| 30. By: JHamlin22 on 02-02-2010 12:48:02 You guys are also assuming that Bedard will be back to what he used to be once he gets healthy. He is coming off of major surgery, and we just don't know if he will be the same pitcher. IF he isn't signed near the all-star break and has done a throwing session for teams, then I can see the rationale behind signing him. Your guys argument is assuming he will be completely 100% healthy and back to the old pitcher he used to be. I don't see any way Jack Z signs an injured Bedard in hopes that he rehabs well and will be fully healthy and back in pitching shape after the All-Star break. |
| 31. By: JohnMcD on 02-02-2010 13:04:06 JHamlin: Yes Bedard is an injury risk, but you can't say you would rather have a full season of Washburn than an injury risk of Bedard...Did you see what happened to Washburn the second half of last season? Injuries are always a factor with any player, but who do you suggest the M's go out and get? I am not sure there is much out there.... |
| 32. By: JHamlin22 on 02-02-2010 13:08:38 I would prefer that the Mariners don't go out and sign any pitcher. I think they should look at trade offers as the season plays out. There has been talk of Harang, and I think that is a better option than Washburn or Bedard right now. If we do get another pitcher, I hope it comes via trade because you are right, there isn't much left out there in the free agent pool. |
| 33. By: 01v-dubs on 02-02-2010 13:13:54 As was proven last year I believe that any one of French or Fister could do what Washburn would do, but at a much cheaper price. In Safeco,and with the M's D, pitch-to-contact guys will put up much better numbers then their skill set will usually allow them to. Now, I'm all for signing Bedard and hoping he provides a boost in the middle of the season, it's like making a mid season trade for a TOR starter, its hard to view it as a bad thing. However if Jack Z can swing a trade for a very solid #3 then that's likely the way to go, but in any case I think the M's pitching staff will be very good. |
| 34. By: d2ret on 02-02-2010 13:39:25 21- Ballspiker, astute comment. I was thinking along the same lines. In terms of just budgeting, Jack is leaving much flexibility for next offseason when hopefully we can land a huge stick at 1B. I do admire Jacks methodical approach to this whole process the last two years. If he's around for 5 or more years, we're gonna be in the playoffs all the time, the way i see things moving. BTW, what about Wang. Why is he not in the conversation the last 10 comments? |
| 35. By: Adam T on 02-02-2010 14:51:24 My only real complaint of the offseason? That Zduriencik has made so many moves, I find myself checking online once an hour to see if we've acquired someone new. Kills productivity... |
| 36. By: Plaws on 02-02-2010 15:44:39 Bedard's surgery has an expected recovery time of 7-10 Months. The 7 is late April (Sept. 26th Surgery). This means that the latest he'd be expected to return is around the All-Star break, not the soonest. With Bedard and Wang (Good point) the M's don't have to make a decision for at least most of Spring Training. Until there are other bidders, there doesn't seem to be a rush. Cost wise either might be acquired cheaper now, but there's no certainty either would sign now. Wang's Agent, Alan Nero, recently said "We're so confident and optimistic about his progress that we're not in a hurry to enter into an agreement just to have one." He's expecting to go for minor league rehab starts in April or May. I remember the talk of the Bedard trade and it was agreed by many that the only way it wasn't a total disaster was if he stayed long term. I'm not completely sticking to that thought, it's just that for me it could lessen the sting. Clear back to this mornings first post: I don't think Zduriencik is stockpiling for a trade. If, however, the depth he's added did end up adding to a trade package, his accountability wouldn't be much in question with the standard "We love the players we gave up but when you have an opportunity to add talent like this and improve your ballclub you have to pull the trigger." |
| 37. By: frontstreetfan on 02-02-2010 15:46:33 I just don't see the addition of Garko as a roster problem in fact just the opposite. He's a far more versatile player than your normal 3rd catcher who would be the 25th player on the roster. Prior to the signing of Garko the M's projected 3rd catcher was Josh Bard. This roster addition is clearly playing to the strength of the current M's roster which has good flexibility. He offers the team a career .313 hitter vs LHP (I doubt you'll get that from any 3rd catcher in the AL (He was a catcher at Stanford and thru AAA) and a nice platoon option at first base or DH if the need arises. Agreed he's probably below average at the backstop but given how often 3rd catchers are utilized covering the other positions is a huge plus for the M's. Nice Jacquisiton. |
| 38. By: FWBrodie on 02-02-2010 16:28:14 37: You're looking waaaay to far into the "third catcher" thing. I have two complaints about JZ's offseason: 1) I would have preferred LaRoche over Kotchman. 2) If there was a Liriano offer on the able and Z turned it down, he's kicking himself for it now. Disclaimer: for all I know LaRoche was made an offer and didn't want to come to Seattle and Z was the one making offers for Liriano. Also, for each complaint I have 5 compliments. |
| 39. By: Lamda on 02-02-2010 16:38:46 The problem with trading for a pitcher mid-season is that you gotta look at what we have available to trade, which isn't much, and then realize at the deadline we may have to choose between hitting or pitching. I think we all can agree we'll be looking for 1 big bat come July 31st and it might take most of what we got to get it. Therefor, it would probably be better to take a chance on one of the remaining arms now than hope we can trade for both a bat/arm at the deadline. |
| 40. By: Plaws on 02-02-2010 16:43:57 Bedard and Wang both came up to stay at age 25. Through their age 29 seasons (Bedard's a year older) Bedard had 739 IP in 126 Starts (3Relief app.) while Wang had 670.2 IP in 104 Starts (5 Relief app.) Wang appears to have about 1/3 IP per appearance on Bedard while losing approx. 15 more weeks (almost 4 months) worth of starts. Bedard had 15 starts last year and that's pretty much the projection for Wang this year (comparing age 30 season.) I'd look at overall DL-time if I knew where to look without trying to google each injury and add them. Bedard is LH so his FB tendencies and RH Wangs GB tendencies both fit the home park well. Bedard has been the superior pitcher overall, though 3.66 FIP to 3.99 FIP. I think Garko's lying about MB too. 2003 seems like the only possible year when Bradley was out for the rest of the season with back problems. Rehab assignment at the end of a season when he's not expected back for the year? I don't know, maybe he hung out with the A-ball team when he couldn't play anywhere, but why? Whatever, it's not like Al Martin or anything. Ryan's just trying to fit in and I hope everyone on the team thinks they're new teammates are great players and great people. |
| 41. By: Plaws on 02-02-2010 17:05:45 eh..."their new teammates", may make a bit more sense...at least I know that 'had' has no 'should'. 'Their' is what I should 'have' had. |
| 42. By: Uncle Al on 02-02-2010 20:14:51 Zduriencik said that it would have been extremely expensive to come up with a big RH bat for LF this year. He wasn't able to get the 1B for the future either and settled for Kotchman for now. The players he got in Kotchman, Byrnes, and Garko to close out the roster only cost about $3M in total. All three of these guys could just be let go after the 2010 season without doing any harm to the long range plans. Bavasi would have spent $15-20M and we would have had them for life to screw up thing for more years. It's very interesting that looking into the roster construction for 2011 that they are going to need to add LH bats replacing Griffey and either Byrnes or Garko. They could also need another LH bat to replace Kotchman. We can only wait and see if they are able to get another SP before this season starts and they could still find something they need for the future at the trade deadline when they only need to take on a half years salary. It would have been nice to get everything done before the 2010 season started but that's life and they've come a long way this year. |
| 43. By: slamcactus on 02-02-2010 20:43:12 Edman: the problem with your "just call someone up from AAA" idea is that the team has five guys - Wilson, Kotchman, Bradley, Byrnes, and Griffey - who all regularly miss time without going to the disabled list. During those stints, our bench players become starters and there's no backup option behind them. If Wilson's already out, Hannahan's the starting shortstop for a week, and your Figgins to the OF emergency option is off the table. Without a 5-man bench this team as currently constituted will find itself in several really uncomfortable situations. |
| 44. By: Plaws on 02-02-2010 21:13:01 With the way the roster shakes out it's pretty conceivable that your Positional injury callups will be among Saunders, Tui, Josh W., Woodward, etc.. There are likely to be at least a few players in Tacoma with ML experience. Any of those that make the team over healthy players on the roster probably sends down a Garko, Hannahan, Langerhans or Byrnes. The depth put together here is very encouraging. |
| 45. By: slamcactus on 02-03-2010 01:19:32 I'm well aware who the Triple-A options are (you missed Patterson, Carp, and Brad Nelson). The point is if the guys on the MLB roster have nagging injuries that keep them out of the lineup but don't send them to the DL, the team doesn't have a roster spot to call anyone up to take their place. You only get to call guys up if you remove someone else from the 25-man. To do that you either have to DFA, release outright, or put on the disabled list. There's no rule that allows an emergency "my DH's knees are sore and he'll have to miss this weekend series" call-up. |
| 46. By: Edman on 02-03-2010 01:59:40 So, the lot of those guys is going to have nagging injuries at the same time, so the M's should carry an extra position player, just in case the most unlikely thing happens? Figgins only goes to the OF as a very short term option. Like during a game, or possibly for one game. A vast majority of the time he's at third. Sortty, but I ain't buying that Kotch, Bradley, Byrnes and Griffey are all gonna have nagging injuries. But, if you feel a huge need to add a player, just in case, be my guest. If that's your thinking, I'd rather have Hannahan and a utility guy, than Langerhans. Langerhans can only play the outfield, and does little to help out if players have to shift. |
| 47. By: DMac33 on 02-03-2010 10:10:59 Kotchman with a nagging injury history is news to me ... The moral IMO is that if you want to say that the depth is thin b/c there are so many guys hurt, then I think the following 2 comments are prudent considerations: 1) The platoon nature of many of these "injury risk" players should help keep most of them healthy most of the time. 2) If a player like Wilson has an injury that is a 7-10 day issue, then you error on the side of putting him on the DL instead of keeping a 24-man roster. |
| 48. By: Edman on 02-03-2010 13:58:54 Exactly my point, DMac. As delicate as Griffey and Sweeney were last year, somehow, the team made it through season without a massive shuffling of the lineup. Dave's arguement is lame. He's just trying to push his "defense is everything" agenda. Yes, it's important, but no so much that you can't sacrifice a bit, in an emergency. And, I think he's a little anamored with the accolades that he was given for making the Langerhans call. So, now he wants to push the justification. I'm sure the M's guys read the stuff on the internet. But I'm not sure that the M's would have not proceeded to acquire Langerhans without a nudging by Dave. Tatis would have been a better fit, if your concern was injury risk. He can play the infield and outfield, giving you flexability. Langerhans, can't do that. BTW, you might consider expanding your 24-man roster, to 25, it helps when planning. ;^D |
| 49. By: DMac33 on 02-03-2010 16:02:47 Edman: My 24-man roster was assuming that you kept a player like Wilson if/when they have a 7-10 injury issue where they aren't on the DL but not available to play. I'm all for the guys that want to talk about pitching/defense and that preventing runs is important. But like you, I do agree that at some point you do have to have some balance. I do tend to think that there is a diminishing return present after a while. And as for guys like Langerhans, while not saying that they aren't nice players that provide great flexibility for a roster, let's not confuse them with difference makers. If the Mariners didn't resign Langerhans, my guess is that they'd have gone out and signed someone that you wouldn't notice much of a different between that player and Langerhans. |
| 50. By: Plaws on 02-03-2010 16:03:01 Looking at the "often injured" by position makes some sense. That's SS, LF/DH, LF and DH. At DH you can obviously put anyone. Listing Griffey as often injured when you're discussing positional flexibility on the roster seems pointless. I'm listing Griffey as the 8th OF option, and don't expect 5 injuries to that area ever. In LF I think Langerhans, or otherwise 4th OF, needs to be carried for nagging injuries because it does seem likely for the 2 players expected to get the majority of starts there (Byrnes/Bradley) could have nagging injuries simultaneously. Most people are saying that Langerhans should be on the roster anyway. At SS this is the one position that I see a point in looking into since there's no true backup to SS expected to make the team. Hannahan looked ok there at the end of the season for 2 games, but if he was unavailable or got injured during the game it becomes dicey. Some have suggested moving Figgins to SS, but then who plays 3rd. Move Lopez over and who's at 2nd? One suggestion I heard was teaching Garko 3B but moving a bad 1B glove to 3b sounds like a horrible idea. Kotchman could make for a good emergency 3B, however. Maybe carrying Tui would be more benneficial than Langerhans. It's the SS depth that's the problem and it seems it'd be best if Figgins was the 4th on the depth chart there instead of the 3rd. Overall the depth is good and all the injury concerns seem covered, just not at SS. |
| 51. By: JohnMcD on 02-03-2010 16:18:19 This is the time of year where I love, but hate baseball. I like the fact that baseball is approaching quickly, but the hot stove part is coming to an end. Jason any word on trades for a SP? |
| 52. By: Plaws on 02-03-2010 16:26:04 Double checking that, Griffey's 7th OF, Langerhans technically 5th with a platoon ahead of him. Tatis would've helped a ton, as could Felipe Lopez though I'm not expecting that to happen. Langerhans was a positive overall for peanuts last year (.5 WAR in only 122PA). That's close to his career rates as well. To say that the present M's front office would've found something comparable is really understating it. I can agree with that, but what other FO would even know what they had if they did? Looking at what's out there I only see Endy Chavez as a possible comp and he's coming off injury. I am not the M's FO and it's easier to assume they'd find someone. |
| 53. By: shortstop9 on 02-03-2010 17:39:47 If jack wilson went down in a game Hanahan could finish the game,then they could bring up Josh Wilson until he gets back. How could Kotchman play 3B ? He is left handed. |
| 54. By: Plaws on 02-03-2010 21:56:24 I agree, SS9, but the conversation has gone to the more day-to-day injuries and specifically if some of the injury prone players were already out with one of those when someone like Hannahan got injured or even ejected. Good point on Kotchman. It was something I thought of while typing the previous sentence and I hadn't thought it through. Either way I figure the time for him to work there wouldn't be worth the lost focus on more important things that will affect his everyday play more often than maybe a few games in a season, maybe not at all. It looks like we could use someone who can play both CF and SS around average. Not too many of those kicking around. |
| 55. By: randallball on 02-03-2010 22:52:56 Dodgers nabbed Amezaga today. I would have much preferred him to Hannahan. |
| 56. By: Chris Crawford on 02-03-2010 23:38:54 I played 3B in high school and I'm left handed. So if I can do it, he can do it. I'm obviously being a bit facetious, but no, Kotchman would not be an option for third base. |
| 57. By: Faceplant on 02-04-2010 01:51:07 "Defense isn't that valuable." You'd think people would figure out that this isn't true by now. "There are bigger worries that what if the unthinkable happenes." Sure there are. But that doesn't mean you don't plan for worst case scenarios. |
| 58. By: opatty18 on 02-04-2010 08:14:07 Chris, On a totally non-baseball note, I wanted to let you and everyone know I got an email from a "Chris Crawford" claiming you were stuck in London and needed 2k to get back (and of course to transfer those funds as soon as possible). Just a heads up for anyone else who may get that message, in case it's not just me. |
| 59. By: Edman on 02-04-2010 10:52:28 So, Faceplant.......Do you carry a 5 gallon can of gas in your car, just in case you run out of gas in the middle of the night in a remote area? I'm betting not, because you probably watch your gas gauge and monitor your gas usage. Nobody's saying you shouldn't plan. In fact, Jack did just that by signing Langerhans to a mutual contract that adjusts for him being either in Seattle or Tacoma. THAT is planning. In essence, Jack put him on retainer. But, putting him on the 25-man roster, because you're worried that you can't keep a trio of Griffey, Bradley and Byrnes healthy at one time. And please, everyone knows the value of defense and how well the M's made that point. However, worrying about defense for a couple of innings, is a tree that bares no fruit. It's not so important for a couple of innings, out of roughly 1500 innings. |
| 60. By: Galway on 02-04-2010 11:26:33 Of the injured group I'd like Wang over Bedard but I do like Bedard over Wash. So does a Bedard sign mean they are no longer looking to add a starter? Also does it provide any indication that the trade market for Lopez is just non existent? I still could see a Lopez trade and Hudson sign but I just do not hear much interest in Lopez. |
| 61. By: CrimsonNW on 02-04-2010 12:41:35 I would love to see a Bedard signing, even if he is out until May or June. This would let a guy like Fister or Vargas get a good shot in the rotation. And if he does well, it will have to light a fire under Snell to perform. Because when Bedard comes back, Snell will be the five... |
| 62. By: Chris Crawford on 02-04-2010 12:52:08 Opatty, thank you, just a warning to all cyber users out there? Protect your stuff....I am one of the most careful people ever, and i got hacked like no other. People are scum. |
| 63. By: StandinPat on 02-04-2010 13:33:39 Quick Comparison of Bedard and Wash 2008: Bedard 1.1 WAR in 81IP Washburn 1.3 WAR in 151IP 2009: Bedard 1.9 WAR in 83IP Washburn 2.1 WAR in 176IP Certainly looks like Bedard/Fister(or Vargas) > Washburn. The key will be getting Bedard to the end of the regular season healthy. Bedard is only better than Wash if he's actually able to take the mound. |
| 64. By: Edman on 02-04-2010 14:45:11 Why do so many try to link a Lopez trade to every discussion? I'd think if Jack wanted to move Lopez, he'd be gone by now. Either he doesn't want to move Lopez, or there is little to no market for him. I'd guess the later. |
| 65. By: DMac33 on 02-04-2010 15:36:34 Edman: Wouldn't shock me if there weren't teams interested in Lopez ... just not interested in him for the price that it'd require for the Mariners to move him. Whether people want to admit it or not, he does bring something to the table that others don't bring and is a valuable trait in the 2010 Mariners offense. |
| 66. By: Faceplant on 02-04-2010 23:40:34 "So, Faceplant.......Do you carry a 5 gallon can of gas in your car, just in case you run out of gas in the middle of the night in a remote area? I'm betting not, because you probably watch your gas gauge and monitor your gas usage." Exactly. I can tell when I'm about to run out of gas. I can't tell when my pitcher's shoulder is going to explode, or my SS is going to epically destroy my left fielders knee. Keeping with the car analogy, let's think of it this way. I can't tell when I might get a flat tire. So I better have spare. |
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 |