Comments on: Position Roundtables: Starting Second Base

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:56:25 +0000

Jeff’s poem about Boone turned out to be eerily prophetic.

By: paul mocker

paul mocker — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:12:04 +0000

Here is an interesting way to establish the value of Boone: Who would Beane or Stoneham give up for him? Grant you that no one trades inter-division, but it tells me something that he did not try to trade for him last season when we could have helped the A’s. Beane chose Ginter instead, and that says a lot.

And if we could flip him for a prospect, say a 19-year old at Single A or a 24 year old at AAA (think Ryan Garko, Cle, C), at the trade deadline even though we were 5 games out of first, would you do it?

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:28:27 +0000

It’s going to be very hard to justify it to the team if the M’s are in a pennant race, though. Trading away a performing veteran for kids = goes over badly.

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:04:08 +0000

No, actually it assumes a situation that makes trading Boone an obvious good move–Boone hitting and fielding well, Lopez hitting and fielding well in Tacoma, and another team coming along and making an offer for Boone that clearly benefits Seattle. It wouldn’t require a best-case scenario for Billy Beane to deal Boone at the deadline.

By: Marty Lighthizer

Marty Lighthizer — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:53:32 +0000

Re: #39
That best-case scenario obviously assumes that Bavasi is good at thinking on his feet (a la Billy Beane), rather than Standing Pat.

By: firova

firova — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:45:16 +0000

#37 and #38 are right, of course. I’m just feeling the sentiment of spring. It actually looks like Lopez may be one of the few analogs out there for Boone–a second baseman with some legitimate pop.

By: The Ancient Mariner

The Ancient Mariner — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:18:12 +0000

Hey, I like continuity too, but not at the expense of winning, and with every player there comes a point when keeping them around for the sake of the former compromises the latter. Count me in as one who thinks we’ll see some bounceback from Boone this season–somewhere north of halfway between ‘04 and ‘02, would be my completely unscientific guess–but I’d bet this will be the last season he’s even an acceptable starter in the bigs. Best-case scenario, imho, is that come July, he’s playing well and Lopez is playing well at 2B down at Cheney, and Bavasi is willing to flip Boone for the best deal.

By: Ralph Malph

Ralph Malph — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:15:23 +0000

Let me try that first sentence again…

I can’t believe there is anyone here who wouldn’t be happy if Bret Boone had a monster year and the M’s were in the pennant race in 2005.

Carry on.

By: Ralph Malph

Ralph Malph — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:14:14 +0000

I can’t believe there is anyone here who wouldn’t want be happy if Bret Boone had and the M’s were in the pennant race in 2005.

Wanting it to happen and rationally thinking it is likely to happen are entirely different things.

If Boone has a good 2005, does that mean they should sign him for 2006? Unlikely. Obviously that depends on (1) how much $ he wants and for how long, and (2) what role he would want to play.

By: firova

firova — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:21:30 +0000

Bret Boone is 2005’s Freddy Garcia. It bugs me because the fan in me likes continuity, though not quite as much as winning (and I wish more of the young pitchers had shown Garcia’s ability). Some people, though, seem to like rational expediture of funds and proper progression of talent better than either continuity or winning. Beane (who I grant has done his share of winning) would trade Boone in a heartbeat and be perfectly justified on the basis of savings alone.
Whether it should be expected or not, does anyone here actually want Bret Boone to have a monster year? I think it is just as likely for Lopez to not be ready for the bigs this year and for the Mariners to be competing for the division title as it is for Boone to have a worse or better year than 2004. Would anyone here take a pennant race with Boone at second base, or has everyone written off 2005 and Boone with it? Or would we prefer that our predictions of a mediocre club come true with Boone traded so that our theories about how the club should be built will be validated? Personally, I think Lopez can wait a few months if it means the Mariners are playing meaningful games in September with number 5 or 6 hitter Bret Boone as a productive part of the lineup. Smart money says the Mariners should not resign Boone. OK, and if the Mariners did actually re-sign Boone amid predictable howls of protest, and he was productive, and the Mariners won in 2006, would everyone complain about how Boone is blocking Lopez or is overpaid? At what point does the sensible analysis take a back seat to simply enjoying a favorite player as long as the team is winning? It could be and has been argued that Ripken, Yount, Gwynn, and yes, Edgar Martinez stayed around too long, but baseball is about more than empiricism. Sometimes I think our hard-headed skepticism drains a bit of the romance from the game (not that free agency and insane front office moves don’t do the same thing). I guess I like Bret Boone and want the Mariners to win with him at second base, at least for now. I like continuity, though it is expensive and occassionally short-sighted. I’ll do my best not to pay attention to Boone’s RBI, even if he tops 100 again.