The Dream Scenario
When I posted my offseason plan, I noted that it was made with the understanding that the front office has real limitations they have to work under - they aren’t allowed to just trade half the roster and pitch the executives on the concept of freely available talent, so I made the suggestions to comply with the structure that Bavasi and the rest of the baseball operations team are working under.
This post, however, ignores all that. This is what I would like to see the Mariners do this winter if there were no executives to yell that we can’t trade the marketable left fielder, no writers penning wishes for a frontline starter everyday, no season ticket holders to placate, no press conferences to deal with, and the front office was just allowed to shape the roster based on baseball decisions without any outside influences. This, of course, isn’t any kind of realistic scenario, but it will show where I see the weaknesses of the team and potential ways to address them.
So, here goes - if Dave controlled the universe and didn’t have to answer to anyone, the offseason would look something like this.
| Lineup | Player | Position | Salary |
| 1. | Ichiro Suzuki | CF | $17,000,000 |
| 2. | Scott Hatteberg | DH | $1,800,000 |
| 3. | Nick Johnson | 1B | $5,500,000 |
| 4. | Adrian Beltre | 3B | $12,000,000 |
| 5. | Geoff Jenkins | RF | $8,000,000 |
| 6. | Kenji Johjima | C | $5,200,000 |
| 7. | Adam Jones | LF | $400,000 |
| 8. | Yuniesky Betancourt | SS | $1,300,000 |
| 9. | Ronnie Belliard | 2B | $1,600,000 |
| Bench | Player | Position | Salary |
| 1. | Ray Durham | Util | $7,500,000 |
| 2. | Willie Bloomquist | Inf | $950,000 |
| 3. | Jamie Burke | C | $400,000 |
| 4. | Wes Helms | 1B/3B | $2,150,000 |
| 5. | Kevin Mench | OF | $2,000,000 |
| Rotation | Player | Position | Salary |
| 1. | Felix Hernandez | Starter | $500,000 |
| 2. | Miguel Batista | Starter | $9,000,000 |
| 3. | David Wells | Starter | $4,000,000 |
| 4. | Bartolo Colon | Starter | $10,000,000 |
| 5. | Edwin Jackson | Starter | $500,000 |
| Bullpen | Player | Position | Salary |
| 1. | J.J. Putz | Closer | $3,800,000 |
| 2. | Sean Green | RH Setup | $450,000 |
| 3. | Jeremy Affeldt | LH Setup | $3,000,000 |
| 4. | Eric O’Flaherty | Middle | $450,000 |
| 5. | Todd Coffey | Middle | $450,000 |
| 6. | Cha Seung Baek | Long Relief | $450,000 |
Transactions that get us to this roster:
Trade Jarrod Washburn, Raul Ibanez, and Mike Morse to Philadelphia for Wes Helms and Adrian Cardenas
Trade Jose Lopez and Jose Vidro to Washington for Nick Johnson and Ronnie Belliard
Trade Richie Sexson and $4 million in cash to San Francisco for Ray Durham
Trade George Sherrill and Horacio Ramirez to Cincinnati for Scott Hatteberg and Todd Coffey
Trade Wladimir Balentien to Tampa for Edwin Jackson
Sign Geoff Jenkins to a 2 year, $16 million contract
Sign Kevin Mench to a 1 year, $2 million contract
Sign David Wells to a 1 year, $4 million contract
Sign Bartolo Colon to a 1 year, $10 million contract
Sign Jeremy Affeldt to a 3 year, $9 million contract
Quick explanations of why the other teams would make this trade:
Philadelphia adds the LH outfielder they’ve been looking for and another veteran starter to help fulfill Gillick’s old pitcher fetish while only parting with a utility player they don’t need and a prospect who plays the same position as Chase Utley.
Washington gets a toolsy young second baseman and relieves their 1B roster logjam, while Bowden gets a chance to trade Jose Vidro for young players for the second time in as many years.
San Francisco gets a first baseman at basically no cost and opens up second base for Kevin Frandsen.
Cincinnati creates a line-up spot for Joey Votto, continues to improve their bullpen, and gets an extra arm with a pulse for their rotation.
It’s a pretty significant gutting of the roster. Gone is half of the ‘07 line-up, including the three DHs and the underperforming second baseman. In their place are a pair of high on-base left-handed first baseman, a slugging left-handed outfielder with range, and a serviceable veteran second baseman to hold down the fort until the shiny new second base prospect is ready in a few years.
On the pitching side of the ledger, the calls for a frontline starter are ignored, and the rotation is filled with two overweight question marks and an Australian kid with very little experience in the rotation. However, the key isn’t the three names in the rotation - it’s the guys who are still around, ready to take their jobs should anyone fail. Still in the organization are Ryan-Rowland Smith, Cha Seung Baek, Brandon Morrow, Ryan Feierabend, and Robert Rohrbaugh. The M’s would go to camp with 10 guys potentially available to break camp as a starting pitcher and to fill in for the inevitable nagging injuries that the new rotund pitchers will have to work through.
This team, while not perfect and filled with potential injury issues, would have a solid chance of taking the division if certain things break right - Nick Johnson’s recovery goes well and he plays a full season, either Colon or Wells are healthy and effective, Rowland-Smith or one of the young kids solidifies another rotation spot, and Affeldt/Green/O’Flaherty/Coffey can replicate some of the terrific performances the pen got from Sherrill and company in ‘07. It’s all within the realm of possibility, and does give the team something like a 20-25% chance of knocking off the Angels and stealing the division title.
The beauty of this roster, however, is the 2009 team. About $33 million of the budget is coming off the books after the season, giving the team significant financial flexibility going into the future while retaining the core young talent to build around going forward. The team creates potential opportunities for Jeff Clement and Brandon Morrow to demand playing time through strong performances in Tacoma, keeps all it’s valuable trade chips for a midseason deal if the team is showing signs of being a contender, and realigns the organizational talent to better fit together and complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
The defense is good (potentially terrific, depending on how Nick Johnson moves after a year off with a broken leg), the offense is solid and balanced with both LH and RH hitters who can get on base and drive the ball into the gaps (while also being perfectly setup to take advantages of platoon strengths), the bullpen is still good, and the rotation is good enough. No, it’s not filled with a bunch of big name Cy Young contenders, but for once, it’d be nice to see the team stop obsessing over the quality of a couple of pitchers and figure out that teams win baseball games, not starting pitchers.
Of course, none of this is going to happen, and a lot of it couldn’t happen even if the front office wanted to be so radical, but it is at least nice to dream every once in a while.
Interested in your inclusion of Scott Hatteberg as the DH. Do you like him as a player or just because he is cheap in this scenario?
What would you think about having Johjima/Clement split time at catcher and DH rather than using Hatteberg?
December 17th, 2007 at 9:07 amThe idea of using Clement at DH next year is a bad one, and people need to realize that he’s both not ready for the majors and totally wasted at DH.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:09 amI was looking around at players just yesterday and Nick Johnson was one of my thoughts. I realize this is a dream scenario but any way the Nats let him go?
December 17th, 2007 at 9:11 amThis team looks way too frail to sustain success in 2008 but I like where it would leave the M’s for 2009. Any dream scenario that doesn’t nuke the farm system is okay by me.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:16 amKept Bloomquist, I see. You have been assimilated. Resistance was futile.
I must say, though, that I love the idea of preying on Pat Gillick and his love for old guys if it could bring an apparent stud like Cardenas here.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:21 amI guess I’m not sure I understand the obsession with financial flexibility over other factors. Sure, it’s important to have money available when the right players come along, but given the outrageous trend in free-agent contracts, $33 mil might get you a Johan Santana and two bullpen catchers. Roster flexibility is a basically a fetish on this site.
Every team has to manage their resourcs well in order to win, but the Mariners have the luxury of over-paying more than other teams. I’d rather focus on getting the right players than saving money (though I recognize that those two goals are often related and not mutually exclusive).
All this leads me to say that I don’t understand the first move, unless you are really high on Cardenas and really low on Lopez. I fail to see how Wells will outperform Washburn, and at 5 million savings, that doesn’t seem like a good swap. Plus I don’t see how Hatteberg will outperform Ibanez. He’s older, moving to a more difficult league (and ballpark), and the last time he was in the AL west he didn’t exactly tear the cover off the ball (or even get on base at Ibanez’ recent clip). Is downgrading at two positions worth a swap of Lopez for Cardenas? If the latter is the next Chase Utley, maybe, but that’s a long shot.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:29 amsigh. no ballplayers making career decisions on silly things like the NL over the AL, Any Place Else over Seattle, A Chance to Win over Help Us Try To Win …
December 17th, 2007 at 9:32 amI guess I’m not sure I understand the obsession with financial flexibility over other factors.
I guess I’m not sure I understand why people can’t grasp that the team actually deals within a budget.
Roster flexibility is a basically a fetish on this site.
Yea, darn our desire to maximize every dollar spent by the organization and allocate resources properly.
Every team has to manage their resourcs well in order to win, but the Mariners have the luxury of over-paying more than other teams.
No they don’t - they’ve tried that, they’ve failed, and you should have learned that’s not true by now.
I’d rather focus on getting the right players than saving money
Saving money allows you to get the right players.
All this leads me to say that I don’t understand the first move, unless you are really high on Cardenas and really low on Lopez.
Washburn is both bad and expensive - moving his $10 million in ‘08 and ‘09 off the payroll gives you the ability to sign Bartolo Colon. Colon > Washburn.
Plus I don’t see how Hatteberg will outperform Ibanez.
He doesn’t have to. Ibanez is essentially being replaced by Geoff Jenkins, and that’s a pretty significant upgrade. The Hatteberg/Helms platoon is replacing Jose Vidro, and that’s also a pretty obvious upgrade.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:36 amLove this Dave! Does bring up a question though. If Boomer retires do you look for another arm or go with one of the Cha Seung Baek, Brandon Morrow, Ryan Feierabend, Robert Rohrbaugh options. Thanks!
December 17th, 2007 at 9:45 amWhat, no trade with the Rays for one or more of their extra young pitchers?
December 17th, 2007 at 9:46 amI think Cincinnati should drool over Sherrill but his extreme FB tendencies might scare them away give GABP generously rewards FBs. Aslo, HoRam is actually a pretty expensive pulse and a dim bulb compared to the back-end options they currently have in Homer, Cueto, and even Maloney. Also, Hatteberg is very much a recent invention of platooning in GABP and while Safeco doesn’t penalize lefties, it doesn’t necessarily reward them like GABP does.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:49 amIbanez is essentially being replaced by Geoff Jenkins, and that’s a pretty significant upgrade.
I don’t get how Jenkins fits in with the plan to “maximize every dollar spent by the organization and allocate resources properly.” Jenkins is going to come in as a well below average hitter for a corner outfield spot. Why not play Wlad for $15 million+ less? I don’t see the differences in their possible performances being worth that much.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:50 amJenkins is a better defensive player, and his left-handed bat is a better fit for the dimensions of Safeco.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:57 amI don’t see the differences in their possible performances being worth that much.
That’s because you guys all vastly overstate how good Wlad would be next year.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:03 amYeah, I’ll second the “Huh?” for having Bloomquist on your “Dream Scenario” — surely you could find a cheaper alternative, if you’re living in your fantasy land
I’d also LOVE to see the M’s explore conversations with Washington. I’m not sure they’re willing to take Vidro back, but Belliard and Johnson would be worth having conversations about. Might they be interested in Sexson?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:05 amWhat, no trade with the Rays for one or more of their extra young pitchers?
I’ve beaten that horse to death. That would obviously work well too, but we’ve talked about it so much that I just went another direction.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:08 amThe point is not that the Mariners don’t have to be careful with their money (a point I made). The point is that they’re closer to the Yanks/Sox than they are to the A’s. You can overpay AND be smart about it. The ‘fetish’ comment is there because I suspect there is an ideology of cost-effectiveness that outweighs (sometimes) an ideology of winning. Again, they’re not unrelated, but they’re also not synonymous.
I’d also be happy throwing the LF spot to Wlad, with Jones in right (or in CF with Ichiro moving to right). Then you’ll have cash to get Colon (who is worth a gamble).
And if you really want to take another gamble on Nick the Stick, throw Lopez their way and put Durham at 2B. Defense takes a hit but offense is better. Sexson + Lopez = Johnson + Durham (salary-wise; even with a few milion going to SF).
December 17th, 2007 at 10:09 amThat would obviously work well too, but we’ve talked about it so much that I just went another direction.
While I appreciate getting a fresh perspective on alternative directions the team could take, does it really not make a difference whether you include a pitcher trade with the Rays or not? It seems like your 2009 roster, despite its roster flexibility and available funds, would still have holes to fill in the rotation. Assuming Morrow’s ready by then, you’d still have Felix/Morrow/Batista and maybe RRS, leaving one or two available spots. Wouldn’t it be more valuable to snag a young, talented pitcher and take care of that need, rather than trading for platoonable DH/1B types?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:15 amI think a fairer assessment is that there is a belief that the “ideology of cost-effectiveness” will more likely lead to sustainable winning. Furthermore, there is a time on the win curve when the “ideology of winning” trumps an “ideology of cost-effectiveness” and obviously a time on the win curve when the adoption of an “ideology of winning” might have disastrous consequences for the overall outlook of the franchise.
Of course some would even object to the use of “ideology” if it’s use implies a lack of thoughtful introspection about these issues.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:19 amThis doesn’t say who you’d replace McLaren with in order to have a Manager that will platoon.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:24 amOkay, just so we didn’t have an entire thread about the Tampa pitchers, I’ve added a Balentien-Edwin Jackson swap.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:24 am17, I don’t think you get to decide whether or not you made a point. I think your fellow readers will be the judges, and I think you came up short. You may have TRIED to make a point about being careful with their money, but it was lost amongst claims that we don’t need to worry about the price like the other teams do.
Also, taking basic payroll numbers from CBSSports.com, NY spent $190 million, BOS spent 143, we spent 106, and Oakland spent 79. So, I don’t see how we’re closer to the Yankees than the A’s.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:29 amI’m not even sure what to say, Dave. This plan really does make a person salivate at the freed-up dollars for 2009. How nice it would be to be in such a position! I like the on-base personality of the regulars, as well as the “fill-in-the-gap” flexibility in the rotation. As we saw last year, sometimes it doesn’t take a lot of things to break the right way to make a huge difference. Get a solid year from two of Colon, Wells and Jackson (or an early-season fill-in), as well as some strong performances in the field and at the plate, and a team that gets on base a lot can stay in the thick of things, most likely.
I always feel worse when I read your plans though, not because the team could execute it if they wanted, but that being creative with roster construction just doesn’t seem to come naturally to the bunch in charge. I just hope that Jones is still with us to start the season. The best thing that can happen to this team is for us to lose out on Bedard and the “glut of overpriced 5th starters who shall not be named.” Of course, that may mean we get Horacio Ramirez in the rotation again . . . [shudder].
December 17th, 2007 at 10:41 amLike it, it’s about as competitive as we’ll get in 2008, but this opens up tons more flexibility for 2009+ and we keep most of our valuable young players like Clement and Morrow who could come into starting jobs for 2009. Plus there’s always FA SP to be (at press time) Santana and Sheets.
As an added bonus we would get to make several thousand jokes over the course of 2008 about Hot Coffee whenever Coffey came in. That alone is worth making a move with Cincy.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:43 amDave, David Wells was reported as not wanting to come here during the trade deadline, why should the off season be any different?
December 17th, 2007 at 10:44 amI’m absolutely disgusted looking at the M’s current lineup and the holes, inflexibility on the field, inflexibility off the field…it drives me nuts that Bavasi either doesn’t see it or just is too inept to do anything about it.
Dave, your lineup had rhyme and reason. It made sense on paper and it was nice to see something like that in associate with the Mariners.
I only wish you could have done something with Bloomie. Maybe throw him in the trade with the Phillies back to Gillick???
December 17th, 2007 at 10:48 amDave, David Wells was reported as not wanting to come here during the trade deadline, why should the off season be any different?
I’d guess that your question is probably covered by this statement:
(Reiterated here by MSB, too)
December 17th, 2007 at 10:58 amWashington would probably make that deal today (although nobody there is really pining for Vidro, so I’m guessing Bowden would want a young organizational arm with potential in the deal instead). One caveat is that Johnson’s injury may still be a concern. The Nationals seem to be planning its roster with the thought that he might not be around.
It’s interesting to me how you’re treating Seattle almost like its an NBA team looking to free up cap space down the road. Is there anything in particular that you’d like them to spend it on?
December 17th, 2007 at 11:11 amThese are my favorite kinds of posts from you, Dave. For one thing, you take rosterbation to a higher level, and reveal the rest of us as the wankers we are. But this is EXACTLY what I wish would happen: keep the stuff that’s worth building around and turn the rest out, just open the door and sweep it all away. Not all of these moves would succeed, but most of them probably would, and you gotta love the flexibility. As it stands now, the ten best players in the game could all announce that they want to play for the Mariners and only the Mariners, but we’d have no way to get them here.
WFB is obviously in there for effect. Honestly, in this roster, he doesn’t make one bit of difference either way.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:12 amWell, Princess Willie’s name is listed under Bench.
There, he adds some value; it is only when he gets media-assisted delusions that he should be a starter that he detracts from the team.
I think he realizes that is not going to happen, at this point.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:23 amThe lesson here is that we should all work toward Dave controlling the universe and not having the answer to anyone.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:32 amI like it, but one question.
When those $33m come off the books, is there a real commitment to respend that money?
Not that a good team can’t be built on far less money than they are spending, but obviously talent evaluation is not a strong point.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:42 amIs anyone else amazed that “if Dave controlled the universe and didn’t have to answer to anyone” Willie Ballgame would still be wearing a Seattle Mariners uniform?
I always assumed that in such a universe he’d be riding a bus between San Antonio and the Inland Empire of California.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:59 amWhen those $33m come off the books, is there a real commitment to respend that money?
Not that a good team can’t be built on far less money than they are spending, but obviously talent evaluation is not a strong point.
One thing to keep in mind is, pretty soon the M’s are going to have to start paying Felix real money if they want to keep him.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pmIs anyone else amazed that “if Dave controlled the universe and didn’t have to answer to anyone” Willie Ballgame would still be wearing a Seattle Mariners uniform?
Um
Hai
Bizzare, huh…
December 17th, 2007 at 12:12 pmWillie B. is a perfectly serviceable bench player. He can pinch-run and play a variety of positions. As long as he is compensated at a sane rate and isn’t ever handed a starting position, he can be on my roster any time.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pmHe can be on my roster for league minimum, not 950,000. I’d rather give the difference to the club house attendants. I can find 20 guys that have his skill set in the minor leagues or on some NCAA track teams. His only skill is as a pinch runner. He’s below replacement in every other area.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThis whole scenario may be a dream and the worst part is waking up to see the M’s roster the same. Actually, the current M’s roster is a nightmare! I wish I could wake up and realize IT was just a bad dream …
Dave, love the ideas. It would be nice to have a GM nut up and have some vision for building a team.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:53 pmHe can be on my roster for league minimum, not 950,000.
The cost of the effort needed to turn Bloomquist at $950,000 into a Bloomquist-equivalent at league minimum is barely worth the savings it would generate. His contract wasn’t a great idea, but it’s not what we should be fixing - it’s the thinking process that produced the contract in the first place.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:57 pm^^^ Exactly.
Bloomquist’s paycheck is not what’s preventing the team from getting better, by itself.
Now, the thinking that PRODUCED that contract is in fact what’s causing the problem, but getting rid of Willie and maybe saving $500k isn’t going to let the Mariners do anything that they can’t do right now.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pmI am having a difficult time figuring out why Bowden would make this deal. When healthy, Johnson is one of the more valuable first basemen in the league signed reasonably through 2009. I also don’t see any scenario where Bowden would take Vidro back and get stuck with the $6M owed to him in 2008 plus the 2009 vested option.
Am I vastly underrating Lopez’ trade value or is there something else I’m missing?
December 17th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWhen healthy, Johnson is one of the more valuable first basemen in the league signed reasonably through 2009.
My sense is that Bowden and the Nats don’t take that part of the equation for granted, although I agree that they would want someone instead of Vidro included with Lopez.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pmAny team that signs Colon is a looser out of the gate. [Mitchell report thread is that way ----->]
December 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pmColon will never return to form. He’s worth league minimum at best with a minor league contract.
Your dream would actually require the M’s MGT to actually get up off of their thumbs. Our HUGE addition thus far is a AAA knuckleballer. . . . David Wells???? Well, maybe the seafood will be better for him, but the damp air won’t help his arthritic hip.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pmFelix, Wells, and Colon would make one heck of a rotation. . . . Those 3 could close down every buffet in King County.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pmDave:
I’m not seeing room for Jr on that roster. Oversight?
December 17th, 2007 at 1:52 pmNot in my book.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pmI’d settle for any one of those trades going down … give us Edwin Jackson!
December 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pmAnd in response to 43 –> I could care less if Colon barely reaches AAA form; anyone is going to be an upgrade over HoRam.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pmI’m not seeing room for Jr on that roster. Oversight?
I’m just going to assume this is a joke, but — he’s not a FA until ‘10, though the Reds could buy him out in ‘09 for $4M. But since we’re talking about ‘08, and Dave clearly isn’t interested in picking up a $12.5M DH, there’s nothing to talk about. (’09 might be a different story, and that’s where your “roster flexibility” comes in)
December 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pmDave-
Your post is EXACTLY why I start gnashing my teeth and reaching for the blood pressure medication when I hear people say “OMG we should play for 2009″ on the Internets- because I KNOW, that given 100 million dollars, some reasonable base talent, the freedom to rework a roster as you see fit, and a GM who understands things like replacement value and defensive efficiency, building a team that could win 90 just isn’t that hard.
It’s only hard for, well, Bill Bavasi and current Mariner management.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:27 pmI suspect there is an ideology of cost-effectiveness that outweighs (sometimes) an ideology of winning.
Of course, over the past few years the M’s have been adhering to the ideology of cost-ineffectiveness that outweighs an ideology of winning. I don’t think that’s beter.
Look, you can throw money at the problem and succeed (Red Sox) or fail (White Sox). And you can be cost-efficient and lose a lot of games (either Florida team), or be cost efficient and win quite a few (Cleveland). Obviously, it’s nice to be both rich and good like the Red Sox. But you don’t get to be the Red Sox by starting out like the White Sox. You get there by starting out like Cleveland and then adding salary while staying smart. And the M’s right now are closer to the White Sox than the Indians, unfortunately. Dave’s unrealistic dream scenario is all about changing that.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:33 pmPiling on….
I’m not sure that comes even close to that….that ideology is more accurately described as being cost-effective WITHOUT coming at the expense of wins. I could just as easily suspect that you don’t buy into the measuring criterion that are being used to measure on-the-field effectiveness of the players that are proposed in this plan.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pmHmmm. This team seems both old and… questionable.
There’s no doubt that an intelligent platoon could improve the DH spot. But if we were worried about Vidro’s age, the new platoon DH is significantly older. A lot of that is thanks to Scott Hatteberg, whose last go-round in the AL did not end well. That may have been largely due to a poor BABIP, but then, his good 2007 was the result of an abnormally high BABIP+friendly confines of the GABP.
Then there’s Geoff Jenkins. I like the guy, and I agree his defense is a plus. But you seem to be asking a hell of a lot of his D, and I’m just not sure that’s warranted anymore (now that Jenkins is 33). UZR has loved him, and RZR likes him, but I don’t see how you can say that he’s more than +7 above average or so with the glove. Put that together with the fact that he was a below average hitter for his position, despite playing in a park that increases HRs, and I’m not sure you’re breaking even. Ibanez’ defense certainly cut his value, but offensively, there’s simply no contest. One guy’s a bit above positional average in a pitcher’s park, the other’s below average in a (power) hitter’s park. How much are you willing to bet that UZR’s got the right number on his defense (and, to be fair, UZR didn’t have him among the top LF’s last year, meaning it can’t legitimately be +10 above ave. anymore).
And if defense matters, then the 2B swap-out hurts. We’ve gone from a bit above average defensively to a bit below, this time replacing a younger-20s defender with another 33 year old. You could use the back-up to split time at 2b, but Durham’s probably the single worst 2b defender in baseball.
The bullpen is also clearly worse, as the top lefty is removed in favor of Jeremy Affeldt (who I like; this move in itself makes sense), who’s not quite the guy Sherrill is. Todd Coffey is a nice under-valued pick up, but he’s not doing a whole lot as the 3rd righty out of the pen.
The bench looks better, but I’m not sure what to make of Kevin Mench. He looked great in Texas, but his HR/FB never came close to repeating his Arlington levels. I think we’ve got to accept that the Mench of the past few years is the ‘real’ one, and that’s a problem - poor OBP and poor power (and again, despite playing in a park that inflates HR/FB) for his position.
Helms’ reputation as a lefty-masher isn’t exactly wrong, but he’s also perhaps not the best example of the type (sOPS+ against LHP of 98 last year). He’s certainly undervalued now, and he’ll bounce back, but his amazing 2006 was based on a flukey BABIP against *right*handers, not lefties. Again, a 32yo bench bat coming from a good hitters park to safeco; yes his BABIP might increase, and yes, the centerpiece of the trade is Cardenas, but…it seems we’ve given up some runs on offense overall.
The rotation is aged and again has more question marks than anything. I think this is an intriguing strategy to bridge a gap between a compete now and rebuild, but I don’t get how this rotation helps us compete. Jackson’s interesting, but I’d like to know more about why his K rate (even in the minors) took a significant hit a few years ago. David Wells and Colon have been both ineffective and injured off and on for the past two years, and while it’s possible that both bounce back to their FIP levels, it’s also possible that they’re both about done. Again, the risk isn’t huge, but I just don’t see how they’re going to put the team into a better position to succeed than Morrow+Rowland-Smith +money spent elsewhere.
So, Dave, how good do you think Wlad will be next year?
December 17th, 2007 at 3:05 pm22:
Oakland’s payroll was not 79 million; it was 56 million in 2007. That’s a bigger difference between the Mariners (105 million) and the Red Sox (143 million), so my point is valid. We are closer to the Red Sox than the A’s, meaning that we can afford to overpay and avoid selling off players such as Haren. (all figures from sportcity.com
My real argument was that Washburn is better than Wells (and is not a candidate for gout), and that Ibanez is better than Hatteberg (and if you put Jones + Jenkins in the outfield, then Hatteberg IS replacing Ibanez). The difference is about 10 million dollars. Who cares? Ten million is worth a lot to the A’s (it’s 20 percent of their payroll), but it’s not as important to a revenue-rich team in a ballpark that draws like Safeco (even when the team stinks) with a regional monopoly like the M’s. You can still get Bartolo Colon (also a candidate for gout). Dave has then spending 94 mil + 4 to get rid of Sexson. That’s still 6 million less than their payroll last year. If they bump it up 5% you can have Ibanez, Jenkins, Durham, Colon, and Washburn, which I think is better than Hatteberg, Jenkins, Durham, Colon and Wells.
Look, just becauae Billy Beane is attending Chuck Garabedien lectures, squeezing every penny and eating 33 cent plankton, doesn’t mean we have to.
Ceteris parebus, I’d rather be a rich and sometimes dumb team than a poor but always smart team. Billy Beane keeps having to pull rabbits out of his hat. We can take a few mulligans and still compete for the division.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pmYour math, and logic, are both wrong.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pmuh, thanks professor. care to elaborate?
you’re right that my quick add on your chart was wrong - it actually comes to 98.4. Adding 4 to get to Sexson gets you to 102.4. Fine.
If the M’s add 5% to last year’s payroll they’ll be at 110+.
A roster of Ichiro, Ibanez, Johnson, Beltre, Jenkins, Johjima, Jones, Betancourt, Durham, Morse, Bloomquist, Burke, scrub, Hernandez, Batista, Washburn, Colon, RRS, Putz, Green, Sherrill, Affeldt, Flaherty, Baek and Huber is 103. You could keep Vidro instead of bench scrub X if you got the Giants to take Sexson for Durham straight up. Or package Vidro with a prospect to get a bucket of balls. Or raise payroll 6 or 7% (the point is, they can afford it - and not even in fantasy land but in the real world).
Now tell me why Hatteberg/Wells is better than Ibanez/Washburn.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pmWell, for one thing, the Red Sox are both smart and rich…and the smart part is the more important, as Dave keeps pointing out. Lots of dumb, rich teams….
December 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pm52. Look, you can throw money at the problem and succeed (Red Sox) or fail (White Sox). And you can be cost-efficient and lose a lot of games (either Florida team), or be cost efficient and win quite a few (Cleveland).
Well put. But in defense of the first poster, I think the point is that cost-effiency should not be the goal of a team. Winning should be the goal, with cost-efficiency being the means.
I suspect we all agree with that statement (at least from the fans’ perspective, as opposed to the owners’ perspective), in which case the disagreement is simply whether the $33M of payroll flexibility is the best means to reach the goal, or if there’s a better alternative. I don’t have an opinion on that, I certainly don’t have a superior alternative in mind. Actually, for the argument below I do have an alternative …
But you don’t get to be the Red Sox by starting out like the White Sox. You get there by starting out like Cleveland and then adding salary while staying smart.
Why not start out like the White Sox and suddenly get smart? The end result is the same, but there’ll likely be more wins along the way, with the inefficient-but-still-talented big payroll rosters. This is basically what the Yankees do, they have periods during which they uselessly throw wads of money at players, and have vastly cost-inefficient rosters. But sometimes (in fact usually), while still having a huge payroll, they spend it more wisely and either contend for or actually win a World Series.
But they do not go through a Cleveland-style rebuilding. Instead they oscillate between the White Sox and Red Sox scenarios.
Yes I know the Mariners are not the same as the Yankees. But they are a team with above average revenue resources.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pmPersonally I hope we NEVER sign Wells. We would be lucky to get 10 starts outta him.
I think that we should look to trade some of our young talent for some proven players. Balentien’s value may never be higher than it is right now. I think he has some holes in his swing and his defense isn’t great so if we could find someone that wanted him that would be great. I also don’t ever see Clement being an everyday catcher or really good DH, another trade chip. We could also get rid of a couple young pitchers that project low end starters like Baek, Feierbrand and Rowland-Smith. If we could package some of this young talent with some veterans (Ibanez, Sexson, Washburn, Vidro) and maybe get a good starter and 1B out of it I am all for it.
I do like the idea of trading Sexson for Durham. I also believe signing Colon to a 1 year deal is a risk worth taking. Jenkins would be a good pick up too but I’m afraid we would have to overpay for him.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pmBut in defense of the first poster, I think the point is that cost-effiency should not be the goal of a team.
In defense of sensible rhetoric, no one has suggested that cost efficiency should be the goal of this exercise. If Dave was really maximizing wins per dollar rather than simply trying to strengthen the organization in the short-term with an eye on the future, he probably could have found a way to cut the salary down to $70M with a higher projected wins/dollar. That’s clearly not his goal, though, so beating down that straw man really accomplishes nothing.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pmUnfortunately, the chances of Geoff Jenkins signing in Seattle are between slim and none.
Which, realistically, means we are stuck with Ibanez in the OF. Again.
Unless the team can dump Sexson (about which I am still very skeptical).
Is there any indication that the team will cut ties with Vidro, or are we stuck with him (at the bare minimum, as a bench player) this year?
December 17th, 2007 at 4:10 pmThe idea of using Clement at DH next year is a bad one, and people need to realize that he’s both not ready for the majors and totally wasted at DH.
That’s why you split him at C with Johjima and have them alternate at DH. I think odds are good that Clement outperforms Hatteberg with the stick in 2008.
Plus, we need some LH pop in the lineup.
Clement in ‘08!
December 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pmActually, I think the problem here is that you CAN’T split him with Johjima—he needs the time to work everyday at catcher. And he won’t get that unless he’s in Tacoma.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:24 pm64 -
December 17th, 2007 at 4:26 pmBut in Tacoma he splits time with Rob Johnson. He’s never really had time where he was the #1, no question about it, C.
That could change if ya swap Johnson for Morse in the trade scenario, but the fact remains that even in the minors, Clement has split time behind the dish.
Well, if this proves anything, it’s that everyone has their opinions.
I don’t see enough difference in the proposed team, and the one Bavasi may put together, it’s just full of different pieces.
I agree that Wells and Hatteberg for Ibanez and Washburn, stinks.
It’s a mute point how much money you spend. Nobody gets rewards for being the most cost conscience team. You get points for winning, no matter how much you spend.
These changes don’t remove any doubts, just create new ones. And, the idea that mass change is good, is bad.
And, Jenkins COULD end up in Seattle, because he’s a Washington guy, I believe, so it does give the M’s some leverage. Enough? I don’t know.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pmTrue. But you think he’d get anywhere near that kind of time up here in the bigs?
December 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pmThe difference between this roster and the one Bavasi may put together is that this roster keeps the important pieces for the future, while Bavasi’s doesn’t.
Did you read the post? Specifically the “The beauty of this roster, however, is the 2009 team” part?
December 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pmWhy would you compare the potential 2008 teams (the one as it looks right now, and Dave’s potential one) and totally ignore the fact that one of the major points of the exercise was that it’d free up a ton of payroll flexibility for the 2009 roster?
December 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm35- Sorry Paul and Ivan. Was in a hurry and didn’t read previous comments. Second your insightful comments.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pmIs there any indication that the team will cut ties with Vidro, or are we stuck with him (at the bare minimum, as a bench player) this year?
Why would they cut ties with Vidro? According to the team Vidro was great. He hit for high average and played almost every day (so their theory about DHing keeping him healthy was right). Bavasi & co. see Vidro as a hugh triumph for their way of evaluating players.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pmIt’s a mute point how much money you spend.
The word is moot, and no, it absolutely is not. It’s a business. The money belongs to people, and there’ss not an endless supply. Every dollar the team spends is one less dollar it has to spend. It’s elementary mathematics.
You get points for winning, no matter how much you spend.
The Mariners spend money, and the aren’t getting “points,” are they? The M’s aren’t winning because they’ve spent that large amount of money poorly. They’re working within a budget, as is every team, and the more you spend on mediocrity, the less you have when it comes time to spend it on an actual superstar or two.
Just because the Mariners are above average in revenue doesn’t mean they can spend like the Yankees. They had the seventh-largest payroll in baseball last year — they’ve obviously proved to all of us that high spending is not translating into on-the-field success.
If someone can please offer proof that the Mariners have an infinite amount of money, that would be appreciated. Until then, can we please stop spouting the myth that cost efficiency isn’t important?
December 17th, 2007 at 5:07 pm68
“The difference between this roster and the one Bavasi may put together is that this roster keeps the important pieces for the future, while Bavasi’s doesn’t.”
But we haven’t seen the roster Bavasi’s put together yet. Are you saying that this roster beats Bavasi’s roster given several hypothetical trades? Could be, but that’s not saying much.
The point is, if ‘the beauty of the roster is the 2009 team’ is the primary motivation, then you can do that cheaper/better. If the goal is to compete in 2008 and 2009, you can probably do that a bit cheaper/better. This seems like a bit of both, and suffers as a result. The 2008 contention depends on a lot of things, like “Rowland-Smith or one of the young kids solidifies another rotation spot,” meaning the team would need to have a good year from someone not on the current roster. So skip the middle man and put Rowland-Smith or Morrow of Rohrbaugh or Dickey in there; you’ve got more money and an equally good shot at 2009.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pmStill, the primary question, to me, is Jenkins. I wish we had a better handle on exactly what he’d add to the team. HOW many runs on D, how many on O?
73: That Rowland-Smith or one of the young kids seems to be from the original post, which filled the 5th spot from those guys. Dave then added the Edwin Jackson deal, so the sentence no longer implies that the team would need to have a good year from someone not on the current roster; they became insurance for Wells/Colon. You could rephrase your argument and say why not just use the kids instead of Wells or Colon, but those are suggested one year deals, so saving that money does nothing for the future.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:14 pmI’m good with tags.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:18 pmIbanez was about 15 runs better offensively and about 30 runs worse defensively in ‘07. Jenkins is the better player, and it’s not even close.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:23 pm76 -
30 runs? THT’s data has the gap at about half that. Is it 30 in UZR?
It just seems that you’re betting an awful lot on the magnitude of that number being close to 30. I guess you’ve got more confidence in it than I do.
I mean, the RZR data shows it’s a gap of about 18 or so PLAYS, or 15 runs.
On the offensive side, Jenkins was at a .261 EQA /55 EQR last year, compared to Ibanez’ .283/88. That’s plus 30 to Ibanez. Is the argument that last year was abnormally high for Ibanez and abnormally low for Jenkins; that their true talent is only 15 runs different? In BRAR, it’s closer, but the gap is still over 20.
At the very least, it seems that their value is “close.”
December 17th, 2007 at 5:46 pmPoor data, poor logic AND poor manners…..
December 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pmUZR obviously thinks Ibanez was godawful last year, and PMR thinks the difference between Jenkins and Raul was on the order of 20-25 runs. This outweighs the offensive gap.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pmIf you’re going to use equivalent runs, you have to compensate for the difference in playing time. The offensive difference was just about 15 runs.
And yes, the defensive difference is right around 30 runs. It really is - Ibanez is disastrously bad out there.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pm…and before we talk about how you “can’t compensate for playing time” since Jenkins was soft-platooned, (1) it doesn’t make that much of a difference, (2) he’d still accrue more positive runs created even if he was facing more lefties, and (3) incidentally he’s probably still better against lefties than Ibanez is.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pm79 -
OK, but UZR thought Ichiro was godawful last year. Dewan’s system had Ibanez as an elite defender as recently as 2005! The point isn’t to question the fact that Ibanez is costing us runs with the leather, that much is absolutely clear. The question is on the magnitude, and you better be very confident UZR’s right.
I didn’t know the gap was that big in PMR. Of course, it was tiny in Chris Dial’s ZR metric in 2006. We can do this all night.
How are you measuring the offensive gap, btw? Are you taking career numbers? Last 3 years? Last 5? Last year, the difference seems to have been greater than 20. I mean, it’s over 40 in runs created, and it’s over 30 in EQR.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pmThe argument is this: while it’s true that Ibanez’s bat was better than Jenkins’ bat, Raul’s glove basically wiped out his offensive contribution while Jenkins’ glove added to his. Thus when considering the overall worth of each player, Jenkins is superior.
Concerning Ibanez (and the gap between he and Jenkins), THT’s data is the most optimistic. Dewan’s +/- suggests the difference is at least 20 runs. UZR thinks Ibanez is Manny bad.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pm55,
I’m not sure your payroll numbers should be any more valid than mine, but let’s assume they are, and you’ve been vindicated on that count. I have a question: you say we can “afford to overpay.” How much? Aren’t we already overpaying for Washburn, Batista, Ramirez, Vidro and Sexson? Isn’t there some point at which you have to start paying people what they’re worth?
I think the key to not overspending, in my mind, is that overspending usually involves long term commitment. Long term commitment limits your ability to adapt as prospects come up, or as veterans wear out their welcome and/or knees. Trading may often help to resolve those issues, but I think the better plan is not to buy these guys in the first place.
The Yankees have proven that you can pretty much buy your way into the postseason. But they’ve also proven that getting in doesn’t get you a ring - being smart gets the ring. More money isn’t necessary - plenty of teams have done it with less.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:16 pm“And yes, the defensive difference is right around 30 runs. It really is - Ibanez is disastrously bad out there.”
Again, you are obviously quite satisfied/confident in this figure.
Where would I, as a simple guy on the interweb, go to achieve this level of confidence? Is this based on a statistic of some sort, or is this more of a cosmic truth?
“you have to compensate for the difference in playing time.”
That’s a great point - good catch. That makes a big difference in their projections.
I’m a bit worried by Jenkins home/road splits, but then, the same is true of Ibanez.
The crux of the matter is still defense, I guess……
December 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm78,
December 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pmDave can tend to be a little brisk. While I appreciate it’s his blog, and he makes the rules, I don’t think David M should be admonished for being hurt when his argument is brushed aside so casually.
“The argument is this: while it’s true that Ibanez’s bat was better than Jenkins’ bat, Raul’s glove basically wiped out his offensive contribution while Jenkins’ glove added to his.”
Thanks. You may find this hard to believe, but that’s precisely what we’re arguing about here.
The numbers matter because I’m still searching for this yawning chasm separating the two. I can’t get there without at least 30-40 runs in fielding. ONE fielding metric gives you that level of difference. The others don’t.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pmErgo, you gotta be damn sure that THAT’S the metric that’s closest to the truth. I’m obviously not there.
I understand the home/road split concern, but one of the main points of support behind the Jenkins wagon is that his swing is perfect for Safeco. Being a decent/good defensive outfielder with a lefty pull swing, he’d have more value to us than to pretty much any other team in the league.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:28 pmHey, this is sort of tangentially related -
Has anyone looked at OF defense amongst players who change teams? That is, is a good defensive LF (by UZR/RZR whatever) a good defensive LF everywhere?
Do fielding runs translate 1:1, or is there some noise there (park factors)?
December 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pmThere are park factors, but the best stats adjust for them, and nothing’s going to make a bad player look good or a good player look bad.
There’s speculation that Safeco actually makes outfielders look *better* than they really are, so it’s possible we may even be underestimating just how bad Raul really is.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pmOf course, stats can’t ever be misleading or biased? Stats tend to get used to create the appearance of fact, depending on how they are used. I’ve seen very few that are used without bias.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:42 pmMarc, there is a big difference between snark and snide. Snark can actually move a discussion forward while snide simply makes one look like an ass.
BTW, as suggested earlier, only the most optimistic metric (and it’s based upon an inferior system i.e. zone rating) suggests the gap between the two in ‘07 is only 1.5 wins defensively.
It’s pretty clear that Ibanez is rapidly losing range to age so it’s reasonable to expect the gap to grow larger between the two in the upcoming season.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:47 pmVery good Dave, I like your logic here alot. This is definately a better solution than anything that Bavasi could cook up. In my dream world, I would have you as President, CEO, GM, and Manager of the Mariners. Too bad that’d never happen :(. The only thing that I am wondering is about the Philly trade, I feel you could get much more than just Wes Helms and a prospect for those three. I know Washburn isn’t good, and we all know Raul’s ups and downs, but don’t people who aren’t fans of this team think higher of those players, or atleast Ibanez?
This is a little old, but I love this Ken Rosenthal quote about Kosuke Fukudome after he signed with the Cubs, “But if Fukudome becomes, as scouts expect, another Raul Ibanez, the Cubs’ lineup would feature four impact hitters.”
December 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pmInteresting stuff but I disagree with the David Wells idea. Too old and overweight.
“and a serviceable veteran second baseman to hold down the fort until the shiny new second base prospect is ready in a few years.”
Are they now looking at Triunfel as more of a second baseman then a 3B or OF? I’d sure like to see a Beltre extension AFTER next season and Triunfel @ one of the other positions.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pmIt is good to dream. It is nice to see other people’s christmas lists.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:13 pmI think it’s interesting that Dave’s dream scenario produces a worse dream team this year than it did last year or the year before that. Getting worse every year…
December 17th, 2007 at 8:28 pmTerry,
I’m sorry you feel I was being snide. I really didn’t understand what you were trying to add. It’s not that I don’t understand Dave’s argument; Dave’s framed it unambiguously.
“BTW, as suggested earlier, only the most optimistic metric (and it’s based upon an inferior system i.e. zone rating) suggests the gap between the two in ‘07 is only 1.5 wins defensively.
This is exactly the point. IF it’s true that only the most optimistic metric has the gap that small, then yeah, I get where Dave is coming from.
As I’ve shown, the metric I’m most comfortable with is not Dial’s ZR, it’s RZR (is that what you meant by ‘based on zone rating). It’s based on PBP data too, and I really don’t have a reason to say why it’s inferior to UZR. If you do, I’d love to hear it. But as far as I can tell, the only difference is in the company providing the PBP detail.
If Ibanez’ age related decline is sapping his range, then the same must be true of Jenkins who will be in his age 33 year next year. The offensive gap between these two is sizeable, and if the point is to get a defensive specialist, then I think we can do so cheaper. That is, if the defensive gap can so easily obliterate any offensive issues between the two, wouldn’t the same be true of an actual defensive genius in LF. Coco Crisp, maybe, or any of a hundred glove-first guys who could play the position. If the defensive side of the equation is soooo massive, why not get an Adam Everett type?
December 17th, 2007 at 8:53 pmLopez gets all the flack for his poor play but what about Yuni? He’s a 25-year-old slap hitter whose glove may not be as good as was advertised.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:42 am[I think there were only two pieces of punctuation in this entire post, we can't take your ideas seriously if we can't read them]
December 18th, 2007 at 2:27 am97- 1) Locate the comma key.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:57 am2) If we trade Richie, we aren’t paying his salary. $7.5M for Durham, $4M in the trade, is $2.5M less than Richie for a player who would be useful to the M’s.
3) The team’s actual roster right now is not an 88 win team.
92 - Why? If Triunfel can play 2B, why wouldn’t you want him to do that? There are far more players available that can play 3B or, of course, the OF.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:09 amThat rotation sucks. With the exception of Felix, of course. But otherwise, yeah, it really sucks.
So many things that make little or no sense to me, but I obviously can’t pollute this thread with a response to all of them.
How ’bout just a couple?
You’re trading Sexson plus $4 MM cash to SF for………Ray Durham? How the heck is that supposed to help us? We need offense, and you’re trading away one of our best hitters for a guy that’s going to be a benchwarmer? Really? You would really rather have Durham for $11.5 MM than Sexson for $14 MM? Hey, I know he sucks in the field, but we sure could use his bat. Since this is all a fantasy, couldn’t you come up with a way to get him off first but keep his bat in the lineup?
Trying to piece together a rotation with a bunch of question marks is one hell of a way to put together a winning team. But you’ve created this mess in part because you’ve traded away one of our most reliable arms, Washburn, and getting back a rather questionable return for him. Hey, I’m all for trading Ibanez now while he has a lot of value to other teams, and I know Adrian Cardenas is highly regarded…..but he is only in low A and hasn’t exactly been tearing it up, and losing Washburn would put a huge hole in our rotation. And Wes Helms????? We’re giving away a heck of a lot of talent here without getting a whole lot back to show for it.
It’s great that we’re freeing up a lot of money for 2009 — but that in itself is a problem. We would have a lot of positions to fill and it’s hard to find that many appropriate peices in just one offseason to put together a whole roster the way you would want it. In other words, too much work to do in just one offseason. Better to split the work up into 2 or 3 years and make good solid decisions all along the way.
#97, that’s got to be the best example of replacement level posting I’ve ever seen on the internet.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:31 amyou’re trading away one of our best hitters …
Care to elaborate on how Sexson is one of our best hitters? He hit 205/295/399. Our weak-hitting SS hit 289/308/418. Aside from Lopez, Sexson was our WORST hitter last year and that’s before you adjust for position.
Sure Sexson is likely to rebound, but so is Durham. Given that, I’d plan to start Durham instead of Belliard at 2B. I know some people get excited about home run totals, but Richie Sexson simply isn’t very good right now and that’s assuming he rebounds. A repeat of 2007 should get him released in June. Hatteberg and Johnson are both better hitters at this point than Sexson.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:52 am98/Sports on a Shtick,
December 18th, 2007 at 9:05 amWhile Yuni is no superstar, he’s playing (offensively) to his known potential, roughly. Lopez is underperforming, and last year was much worse than Yuni, if you can believe it. Defensively, as you noted, Yuni may not be what we thought, but I think defense is always harder to analyze statistically, so it’s harder to say at this early point. He was having problems early in the year and he fixed them, which is a good sign, right? So while Yuni may not be the ideal SS, his issues are nothing compared to what Lopez did last year.
102 -
Durham is atrocious in the field. Really, really bad. If you play Durham at 2b, why the heck wouldn’t you keep Raul in the field?
Also, are you sure Hatteberg, coming into his 37yo season, is a better hitter than Sexson? He had a nice BABIP, a soft platoon and a delightful home ballpark. Put them both in Safeco, and I think Dave would agree that Sexson’s production would likely be higher. The question concerns cost.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:00 amI am not sure how you managed to type “one of our best hitters” in regards to Richie Sexson with a straight face.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:12 am94 & 101,
My understanding of Dave’s proposal is that Adrian Cardenas will be ready for 2B in a few years, not Triunfel. Doing a little searching on the web, however, I see that some Phillies bloggers and the experts they’ve talked to (Phuturephillies.com) have some doubt about whether Cardenas will stick at second, so it’s a debatable idea. However, a slight liability defensively could be made up for if he reaches his hitting potential, which is supposed to be high
Overall, I think Dave’s ideas are interesting, to say the least. I wish it had more young guys and less short-term veterans, but I realize that our guys just aren’t ready yet. I’ve pretty much written this season off, and I think I’ll be spending more time following the minors than the Mariners. I’m already looking ahead to September callups, and ST hasn’t even started yet! That’s how optimistic I am.
I think perhaps the most interesting thing to see this year is if Bavasi will find a way to hold on to his job. I don’t know which way to lean on this, because even though BB is less than the ideal, he is a known. The Mariners have taught me to fear the unknown.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:32 am106-By “best”, he doesn’t necessarily mean at hitting I don’t think. I’m sure Sexson is the best at something. Perhaps at Ping Pong, or maybe he’s really funny. Actually, depending on perspective, he is the best when it comes to height…nobody on the M’s roster grew taller than he did.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am[ot, getting its own post]
December 18th, 2007 at 10:43 amHow is Belliard’s defense at second? And Durham’s? They seem like they would be poor considering Durham’s age and Belliards shape. With the number of ground ball pitchers on this staff it seems like defense at second base would be quite important. Also what’s to like about the second base prospect coming over from Philly his numbers seem pretty mediocre.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:45 amHow will Mariners ever be able to keep attendence up if their ticket prices will be that much more expensive?
December 18th, 2007 at 10:53 am111-
the fans will come in droves next season to watch Lohse take the mound…
and to watch the outfield of Ibanez, Ichiro, and Morse chase down fly-balls after they trade Jones and the rest of the farm for Bedard…
get ready for a GREAT season!
December 18th, 2007 at 11:02 amHey, great news!
[being OT is not great news]
December 18th, 2007 at 11:09 am[ot]
December 18th, 2007 at 11:23 am[ot]
December 18th, 2007 at 11:28 amYou’re trading Sexson plus $4 MM cash to SF for………Ray Durham? How the heck is that supposed to help us? We need offense, and you’re trading away one of our best hitters for a guy that’s going to be a benchwarmer? Really? You would really rather have Durham for $11.5 MM than Sexson for $14 MM?
Richie Sexson’s last 12 months of OPS:
March/April 2006: .659
May 2006: .610
June 2006: .859
July 2006: .877
August 2006: .890
September/October 2006: 1.140
March/April 2007: .606
May 2007: .737
June 2006: .816
July 2006: .584
August 2007: .706
September/October 2007: .167 (2 PAs)
Richie Sexson’s career OPS is .859. Out of the last 12 months of hitting data for him, he’s been at or over his career norms in 4 of them, and well below them in 8 of them, including 5 months where he’s hit like Willie Bloomquist, while playing terrible defense at 1B.
I know you keep asserting Sexson’s a superior player, but the performance data for the last two years does not back that assertion up (an average 1B in MLB had a .850 OPS in 2006, so Sexson was at best a bit above average if we adjust for park- and then we have to adjust for defense). If we are lucky, he will be an average 1B again offensively (.276/.357/.464, for an .820 OPS), which makes him JUST a bad player due to his defense. If we aren’t lucky and he really is done, we’ll get Willie Bloomquist playing bad 1B.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:48 amOh, and:
But you’ve created this mess in part because you’ve traded away one of our most reliable arms, Washburn
If you mean “a reliably mediocre 4th starter”, then yes, Jarrod Washburn is “reliable”. He’s posted awful peripheral statistics, doesn’t go deep in games and hasn’t hit 200 IP since 2003, and clearly isn’t worth the contract he was signed for, while playing in a ballpark that is tailor-made for his type of pitcher (lefthanded finesse flyball pitcher).
You seem to be putting inordinate value on guys like Sexson and Washburn who are completely replaceable- the only thing distinguishing them from any other number of mediocre to bad veterans is the “Seattle Mariners” on their uniform. Is it possible you work for the Mariner front office?
December 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pmeponymous, are you saying that Bartolo Colon or Edwin Jackson or David Wells are more reliable and a better fit for the Mariner’s rotation next year than Washburn? Would you rather replace him with one of these guys going into next season?
Of course Washburn is replaceable — every player is really, when you come down to it. And there are certainly guys available as free agents this year that could approximate his production, who we could sign while giving up no more than a draft pick or two. Like Kyle Lohse or Carlos Silva. Which could be had for somewhere near the salary that Washburn has. Would you rather have one of these guys?
As far as Sexson goes, you’re puting to much emphasis on short term results. The guy’s been an excellent hitter for the bulk of his career, and will almost certainly hit near his career levels next year. Can’t understand why people think he’s somehow forgotten how to be a good hitter.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pmHalf of Sexson’s career was in the NL.
He’s also 33, and his OPS has declined steadily every year since 2005. He is pretty clearly on the decline phase of his career.
There is no reason to expect that he will be any better in 2008 than he was in 2007, and pretty good reason to expect that he will be worse.
There is certainly no factual basis for claiming that he is one of the best hitters on the team.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:10 pmThere is certainly no factual basis for claiming that he is one of the best hitters on the team.
There’s no factual basis for claiming he isn’t, either. We absolutely don’t know what he’s going to do next year, just like we don’t know what Lopez or Jones or Ichiro or Beltre or Johjima or any other player will do next year. We only have the past to go on to tell us what is most likely, and that tells us that Richie Sexson is likely to hit at or near his career levels next year.
I think you’re making the same mistake as eponymous in putting too much emphasis on short-term results. The overwhelming evidence that Sexson has provided during his career for us to draw on to come to a reasonable expectation for his production next year says that he should be a very good hitter, relative to the league.
I’m not sure why anybody would look at last year’s numbers and come to the conclusion that that defines the type of hitter that Sexson is now. It’s only one year. We’ve got plenty of evidence in the past that says he’s a much better hitter than that.
He is pretty clearly on the decline phase of his career.
That statement pretty much elicits a “no s—, Sherlock”. Of course he’s in the decline phase of his career. He’s 33 now, and very few players are not in their decline phase at that age. I don’t think anybody could reasonably expect him to hit 40 or more homers with an OPS near .900 anymore. Well, not like he absolutely couldn’t do that another year, but it’s highly unlikely. He’s probably not going to be the hitter he was a few years ago, and we don’t have to look at his numbers to know that. It’s pr