M’s lose Cruceta
In one of those stupid-decisions-that-didn’t-have-to-be-made, the M’s have lost Francisco Cruceta to the Rangers on waivers.
We’ve talked about Cruceta quite a bit around here. I was a fan when they claimed him, and praised the organization for taking a flyer on him. He pitched well for Tacoma but was terrible in his ridiculously small sample in a September callup. The M’s were never huge fans, and with the extreme depth of potential bullpen arms, decided to remove him from the 40-man-roster, since he was out of options and was unlikely to make the club next spring.
That the M’s decided to waive Cruceta, when they have so much dead wood on the 40 man, and are willing to hand guaranteed multiyear deals to guys like Julio Mateo, is part of what is so frustrating about being a Mariner fan. There was no reason to even try and pass the PCL leader in strikeouts through waivers, and despite their reservations about his flaws, he’s worth keeping around.
The offseason gets off to a bad start, as once again, they focus on what a player can’t do, and not on what he can.
Oops, characaturing, sorry. I don’t actually think it’s a real word, either, but you get the idea.
Yeah, but you can only have so many guys who might eventually rot away in the minors.
I agree that Gillick should’ve tried to build a minor league system, but you still can have only so many minor leaguers you want to rebuild with.
Two guys, 7 IP in the majors: one with an 0.00 ERA against the Yankees, no hits, no walks; the other with a 27.00 ERA in three games against the Royals, a zillion hits, ten walks. What can you tell about these two pitchers?
Nothing, nothing at all. The first guy could very easily never get another hitter out, while the second guy could win 300 games. Or vice versa. It’s not weak evidence; it’s NOT EVIDENCE, PERIOD, of anything at all.
I agree with Dave 100%: this team is going to great lengths to protect total dead wood that is of no interest to anyone, and who wouldn’t be missed for a second if they did take them. Cruceta’s upside may not be remarkable, but it’s not nothing, and we didn’t learn anything about it against Kansas City.
The point here is that Pinero could have been dropped instead. Cruceta has a little value in potential (who really knows what), while we can all agree that Jo-el has no future here at all. That is what makes the decision so disappointing.
Pineiro will be gone though once the M’s non-tender him, I think they have to wait until the offseason first.
Tom, really, just go re-read Dave’s post #23. The whole story is right there. None of the rest of this matters. I think we can all agree that Cruceta probably has a brighter future than most (though not necessarily all) of the players Dave listed there.
Like I said before, not a disaster. No one is saying it’s a disaster. But it is stupid and Dave’s post tells you everything you need to know about why.
I don’t agree so much anymore that Gillick left the basement bare, and this info is a part of the reason
Also worth noting: Foppert, Nageotte, and Cortez have been removed from the 40 man roster. I’m sure we’ll hear about their fates in the next few days. Not counting Meche, that gets the roster down to 40. We’ll probably see a few more names go down in the next couple weeks to make room for Brian LaHair, Mike Wilson, Rob Johnson, Michael Garciaparra, and/or Yung Chi Chen.
not to mention Matsuzaka?
Foppert, per ESPN, has been released.
It’s a real word, but it’s spelled “caricaturing”.
Like I said before, not a disaster. No one is saying it’s a disaster. But it is stupid
Which is what people are grousing about.
They’re being stupid in the little things like evaluation of talent. Which is idiotic for an organization that preaches “doing the little things right” to its players.
The problem isn’t that losing Cruceta is a big deal in itself. The problem is that it is additional evidence that the Mariners’ talent evaluators don’t know how to evaluate talent. If you want to figure out if an organization is smart, the first place to look is at the margins, not at the big deals. Can the organization assemble a decent bench out of free parts? Can the organization find free bullpen talent? Does the organization make smart waiver claims. Does it understand who it should protect from, and expose to, waivers? Etc.
I would assert that the Ms under Bavasi have shown themselves to be absolutely terrible at the margins.
#36– but the Rangers are going to win the WS next year– they just made the magic move of dumping Showalter!
#57– ah, Marinersrevolution….
When the 40 man roster shakes out, there might be a couple names on it that I’d rather have Cruceta over, but it won’t be a big difference.
Cruceta was out of options, which meant he had to make the team in 2007. I’d rather see Baek, Feierabend, Blackley, Woods, and even Campillo starting over Cruceta. And I like Soriano, Lowe, Huber, Mateo, Fruto, and Green better than him in the pen. For all his strikeouts, Cruceta has never really seemed too interested in preventing runs from scoring, hence his 3rd DFA in the last two years.
The DFA of Francisco Cruceta is indicative of nothing that can be stated in general terms about this organization.
When the 40 man roster shakes out, there might be a couple names on it that I’d rather have Cruceta over, but it won’t be a big difference.
Cruceta was out of options, which meant he had to make the team in 2007.
So? Make the decision THEN, not now.
Making the evaluation solely in terms of your own needs is short sided and stupid. If he doesn’t have value to your organization, does he have it to others? I would submit that a PCL strikeout leader does. It is then bloody stupid to throw that away without at least TRYING to get something for that.
The DFA of Francisco Cruceta is indicative of A LOT about this organization in quite specific terms.
During the upcoming days, Jorge Campillo, Travis Chick, Cesar Jimenez, Rene Rivera, Greg Dobbs, and T.J. Bohn should be designated for assignment.
And we just released Jesse Foppert, meaning we have NOTHING remaining from either the Randy Winn or Carlos Guillen trades. ‘sigh’
We have Jose de la Cruz remaining, actually.
I would say reflexively that I have no clue what the Ms are doing trying to build their 40-man and depth in the org—but having watched Bavasi and his set, regretably I _do_ have a clue. See, these folks collect some useful spare parts on the basis of a good, deep scouting staff. This makes it seem like they have a plan. But Bill B.’s talent assessment ‘computer’ is a capacitor with only two states: making it/not making it. If somebody is, at a given time, not making it, the Ms development folks really, don’t, CARE. If the guy has some residual value, they just don’t care. There’s all this talk about challenging talent, and development through adversity, but if a guy doesn’t make it over the hurdle, first time out, the development staff, specifically Bavasi really, don’t, care.
If the team had a plan, it’s nonsensical to waive a guy with Cruceta’s upside when pretty hopeless cases like Campillo, Jimenez, and Cortez stacked like rubble on the roster. But their only plan is to find out who’s in and who’s out. Cruceta was on the outs with them, so he get’s tossed out.
I have very little interest in the ‘development strategy’ of this lot which is less than meets the eye. They collect guys, but really they’re just dredging for diamonds in the dreck, hoping to get lucky. They don’t actually _do_ development per se. This isn’t just about Cruceta: they’ve applied the same approach to a dozen guys, more or less, in their three years. Consider Hiram Boccachica, just as one name. Not real useful, but could actually provide depth at several spots, and not just on the 40-man but on the 25-man. They dumped him without ever replacing what he did, even now; he landed on another team’s 25-man to fill out depth there.
It’s an illusion that the Ms development team does development with these ‘roster fills’ moves and guys: they shoot craps, and if they don’t make their point fast they walk away.
I’m constantly amazed at Bela’s ability to convince himself that he knows what’s going on in other people’s minds, and be so totally wrong.
If you really think Bill Bavasi doesn’t care about these kids making it or not, you’re deceived.
It’s an illusion that the Ms development team does development with these ‘roster fills’ moves and guys: they shoot craps, and if they don’t make their point fast they walk away.
Right, because Ryan Feierabend, Mark Lowe, Emiliano Fruto, Jon Huber, and Eric O’Flaherty were just brilliant right out of the gates…
We realize you hate the front office. Try to hate them for reasons pertaining to reality.
Bavasi thinks he cares, and he very probably _does_ care—but he’s lousy at it. To the point where, practically speaking, it’s the same as if he doesn’t care. There’s no nuance, eptitude, higher level thinking, or master plan there; more like throwing darts while thinking one is planning. And when a guy doesn’t make his grade, I’ve consistently seen him throw residual value away like chaff; if that isn’t indifference, it’s a lack of competence at the margins which produces a comparable result. To me.
There may be a semantic haze here, Dave, which perhaps puts an acrid stench about this and similar posts which irritate your craw, Dave. You seem to think I’m looking inside Bavasi’s head: I’m not. I’m looking at a consistent pattern of behavior, and making an assessment about the meaning of that pattern over and above the intent of the actor. What Bavasi and his inner circle say is one thing; what they do is another, more important thing, which is often in disjunction with what they say. Now, I could, very carefully, phrase and parse my posts to make that approach and intent crystal clear. It’s not worth my time. Most folks here, you especially, can follow my intent, it’s clear.
. . . It says something though that you’re consistently more interested in ad hominem remarks about the poster when I make a remark than about the content. So I’ll say this: you seem to be consistently defending, directly and indirectly, the quality and hence value of Bavasi’s development team and the final result. I say that broadly, being well aware for example that you are directly critical of him and his team in your remarks on Cruceta’s wavier in this instance, as you are in many other instances. We can skip the boilerplate “Boy did you misunderstand me . . . ” remarks, I follow you well. But push come to shove, you seem to think Bavasi’s going in the right direction as I follow you posts over these several years, and specifically over the last several months. I don’t. Period. It’s clear you dislike my assessment there, and by all means feel free to disagree. But I know why you snipe away, and that’s why: you’re still on board with them, and I’m not. That’s it in a nutshell.
—But another two years of losing may shake you off his coattails. : )
Feierabend, Lowe, Huber, Fruto, and O’Flaherty will all matter more for the org in the near term, and any is more likely to make the roster than Cruceta—so why the post about how sucktastic and addled the waiving of Cruceta, then? You invite comment, Dave, but only to the tenor and stripe that suits _you_. Others of us have a different perspective.
It’s inaccurate to say that ‘I have the FO.’ I have no confidence in them overall. ANY COMPETENT FO would have promoted the five guys we just mention, and most would have done it faster than some of the guys they replaced on the 25-man. It’s no special points for this lot that they do the obvious.
Speaking of hating, since you feel free to remark about my views, I don’t come close to your way, way overboard dislike of Pat Gillick. I decided _not_ to post when you went off on your elliptical turn regarding his tenure the other day. It’s your blog, and the fact that you were and are DEAD SOLID WRONG about his tenure, in the main, doesn’t prevent you from having an opinion. And I’ll spare us all the post here I declined to write regarding Gillick there. But in the same vein, I’d appreciate a bit more restraint on your part on the ad hominem remarks regarding my intent and competency to have an opinion.
In my view, Bavasi’s lot will never win or build a complete roster. Nothing you may choose to infer or dislike about my perspective reverses those two _facts_ regarding their tenure. That’s reason enough for me to be sour on them. If they change those two _facts_ ever, I promise I’ll take that into account. When, if, and as. I’m not holding my breatch, ’cause ten years of handlessness is a proven and unbroken record.
Bela,
Here’s the thing that bothers me about your posts;
You think you can interpret someone’s actions and discern their motives. I hate that. You consistently take someone’s performance at their job and turn it into a statement about their character, intelligence, honesty, integrity, or morale fiber. I think that’s one of the most annoying, self-righteous kinds of analysis anyone can engage in, and you do it in almost every post.
Adrian Beltre swings at a slider in the dirt, and you proclaim him a mental midget, uncoachable, and someone who has no desire to improve.
Bill Bavasi puts Francisco Cruceta on waivers, and you decide that he doesn’t care about these players improvements.
If you continue to insist on taking personal swipes at people’s characters based on your perception of their performance, I’m going to continue to call you out on it.
If you want restraint in attacks on intent and competancy, look in the freaking mirror.
And, tell you what, Bela, I’ll make you a deal. If you’re really that annoyed that I point out the glaring biases in your posts, I’ll gladly put you in the moderation queue, read your posts before they hit the site, and approve anything that doesn’t take a swing at someone else’s character or motivations without comment.
If you can figure out how to talk about people without insinuating that your opinion of their quality of work gives you an insight into who they are as a person, then I’d have no problem with anything you write. But you haven’t written anything that would fall into that category in months.
So I’ll say this: you seem to be consistently defending, directly and indirectly, the quality and hence value of Bavasi’s development team and the final result.
Are we reading the same Dave?
I’m very sad that Foppert didn’t pan out. Remember when he was supposed to be the best pitching prospect in baseball? It wasn’t that long ago…
If you can figure out how to talk about people without insinuating that your opinion of their quality of work gives you an insight into who they are as a person, then I’d have no problem with anything you write. But you haven’t written anything that would fall into that category in months.
So your opinion of Bela’s work influences your opinion of Bela?
So your opinion of Bela’s work influences your opinion of Bela?
I haven’t written one word about Bela as a person. Every criticism I have leveled at him has been about the content of what his comments say, and I’ve never made any inferences as to what that says about his character or quality.
Bela is a male?
Although Dave dislikes my love of rosterbation and Ryan Howard, I nevertheless agree with his opinon regarding Bela. As it is, I think that Bela is “annoying” and “self-righteous,” too.
Yet, that notwithstanding, I’m more irritated with Bela’s overuse of underscores and syntactical errors more than his apparent smugness. Hell, as far as I’m concerned, it’s very difficult to read through one of Bela’s posts due to his poor grammar and mediocre writing skills.
At any rate, though, my opinion on the aforementioned issue is nugatory—there’s no denyin’ it!
#74: I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply this: ****You think you can interpret someone’s actions and discern their motives.****
Basically, it’s thru actions that character is revealed.
Now the notion that job performance is not indicative of character is of course dead-on, bullseye, split-the-arrow accurate….
I’ve heard rumblings around the Reds camp that Rudy Jaramillo (rangers hitting coach) will not remain as a member of the new staff that takes over in Texas. Might he be a good guy to have in the Ms clubhouse?
Yes.
Unfortunately, he is under contract for 2007, they love him so much they asked him to interview for the managerial job (he declined) and as Daniels is thinking they may go a first-time manager, he will undoubtably be told that Rudy comes with the job.
#65: But if they wanted to dump Cruceta, couldn’t they have either traded him or bundled him in a trade? He obviously has some value, at least to some teams if not directly to the M’s, so there would be the possibility of getting something for him.
Rather than nothing, which is what they got.
When a team seems to have an abundance of talent in one area (like the bullpen for the M’s right now) it seems to breed a groupthink that said talent has no value and can be easily replaced anytime.
In a year or two, maybe they’ll wish they had more help in the bullpen.
What’s frustrating is the M’s needed just 6 2/3 major league innings to determine that Cruceta was expendible. On the flip side, we get to see gutsy veterans like Boone, Olerud, Everett and others (soon to be Raul) stink up the joint on a daily basis for months on end before they determine they’re washed up.
What’s frustrating is the M’s needed just 6 2/3 major league innings to determine that Cruceta was expendible. On the flip side, we get to see gutsy veterans like Boone, Olerud, Everett and others (soon to be Raul) stink up the joint on a daily basis for months on end before they determine they’re washed up.
This might be standard m.o. for the current coaching staff (see Choo). And it may take some heavy pressure from other parts of the organization for Snelling to have gotten the bats that he did.
Granted, there is an understandable bias for veterans, and most managers prefer vets over rookies. But I think this group really allows internal preconceptions to dominate their perceptions of reality.
A lot of it is probably Hargrove. He decides who his starters are, and he trots them out there every day no matter what.
86. Oleruds “stinking up the joint” had nothing to do with being washed up. He has a great year as a bench player for the Red Sox last year.
Cruceta is mechanically unsound, has poor control so he walked a lot of guys (4.25/9IP in 2006 at AAA), and had a lot of wild pitches (18 last year.)
What you don’t see on television is that his plant foot is never “stable”, it’s always moving around, and as a result he’s all over the place. To extend that point further, he’s probably more likely to get hurt due to his inconsistent mechanics. It may be the M’s tried to fix that and finally just threw their hands up about it as “unfixable”.
If he’s ever more than a middling (read: fungable) major league reliever I’ll be surprised. I don’t see what the fuss is about.
What you don’t see on television is that his plant foot is never “stableâ€, it’s always moving around, and as a result he’s all over the place. To extend that point further, he’s probably more likely to get hurt due to his inconsistent mechanics. It may be the M’s tried to fix that and finally just threw their hands up about it as “unfixableâ€.
Given what the depth the Ms have in relief, I can see where they wouldn’t want to spend the time. But that may not and does not apply to other organizations who may very well want to spend the time to fix it. And may put up with the walks and strike outs. If there are organizations like that, then waiving Cruceta is downright stupid.
THAT is what the fuss is about. I don’t see why people see THAT.
The two key words from my post were “unfixable” and “fungible.”
Maybe Cruceta’s not fixable, any more than Shaq will ever be good at shooting free throws. (Or Kendall Gill ever developing a jump-shot with his atrocious mechanics..but I’m dating myself.)
No reason to get excited about who owns his rights. Have you seen *anyone* say Cruceta is a potential 1 or 2 starter? I haven’t. If Cruceta’s ceiling is 5th starter/long reliever, who cares if he stays or goes. He’s a fungible commodity. Let him go and move on to the next Cruceta, or Ed Vande Berg, or… whoever, they’re just names on uniforms at that point.
I’m sure that Bavasi knew exactly what he was doing when he exposed Cruceta to waivers. To characterize him as ignorant, unsophisticated or uncaring is not realistic. I was completely shocked by the move, and have been spending a lot of thought trying to understand it. Cruceta may not have a future with the Mariners, but he has obvious trade value.
At first I thought Bavasi was trying to sneak him through during the postseason, hoping no one would notice. Then I suspected he was doing it to make a point to Hargrove. “This guy you thought had no value was quickly taken by a division rival.”
By November 5th the roster has to be down to 40 players including the 5 players on the DL at season’s end. There is also about 5 players who need to be added to the roster because they are newly exposed to the Rule 5 Draft. Nothing new there.
Even if you DFA Rivera you have to add another catcher, and the only one with MLB experience is Quiroz. I don’t believe they are ready to give the back-up catcher position to Rob Johnson or Jeff Clement at this time.
Pineiro will be dropped and Campillo and Jimenez will probably also go. After that it gets tricky. We all assume Meche, Perez, Dobbs and Morse will also be dropped. Maybe not. Maybe they plan on trying to resign Meche before he talks to other teams. Maybe they intend to pick up the option on Perez. Maybe they don’t want to expose Dobbs and Morse to waivers.
Yes, I’m sure Bavasi would have loved to keep Cruceta into the December trade season, but it seems more reasonable that he believes they had to move him before the trade and FA season starts.