Comments on: Stone’s argument for Bedard

By: lailaihei

lailaihei — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:58:17 +0000

Bedard is a groundball pitcher.

By: Taylor H

Taylor H — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:33:03 +0000

Yes, I know Sherrill and AJ are not minor leaguers any more.
Sorry for the back to back posts.

By: Taylor H

Taylor H — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:32:10 +0000

About my earlier post… Sorry for being vague (probably not the right word), but I just wanted to point out that the minor leaguers being potentially traded along with AJ have not proven anything in the majors. AJ is a different story, being the top prospect and all (at least, he was when he was still a prospect), but he could still not live up to expectations. Although his expectations are actually quite reasonable, from what you USSM posters been telling me. Bedard, a flyball pitcher, with a much larger outfield and somewhat better infielders (overall) behind him, could potentially do very well as a Mariner.

Also, my argument is kind of hinged on the hope that the M’s will somehow acquire a serviceable right fielder. That’s the major flaw in my thinking, because in all likelihood, they will not.

And you guys were right, I shouldn’t lump Jones with all of the guys who are sure to never make it in the majors. I apologize for not giving AJ the respect he deserves. I just wanted to point out what a small percentage of total players in the MLB system go on to have at least somewhat successful major league careers.

By: Wishhiker

Wishhiker — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:32:20 +0000

I believe The 2007 M’s have the most flawed Pythagorean W/L in the history of the game. Keep quoting it if you must, but it’s pretty clear to me that when you have 2 starters serving up the most lopsided victories on the days they start that it’s going to lean to an overall of more allowed than scored. The loss of Guillens bat means much more to me in regards to them not repeating than Scored/Allowed because of the early season aberration of HoRam and JeWeeeeeeee.

By: OppositeField

OppositeField — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:31:30 +0000

I think we’d all agree with that, hence the FREE ADAM JONES movement last year, and Sherrill’s month-to-six-weeks of dominant setup work early on in the summer.

The point is, regardless of how Mariner-ready these guys are, the club is treating them like prospects.

By: Wishhiker

Wishhiker — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:14:24 +0000

Prospects…These guys are no longer prospects: Morrow, Jones, Sherrill. Too much Major League time to be considered so. All accounts I’ve heard is that Clements bat is Major League ready. Morrow made need to work on secondary pitches, and Clement defensive deficiencies, but we’re not talking about guys in the low minors. These guys are about as low risk as you can get (especially Jones). I’m not just responding to the 90%, but the overall idea that you’re trading prospects to get a Major League commodity.

Anyone here think that Jones, Clement, Sherrill and Morrow can’t contribute to the club this year? If you’re trying to win, you trade prospects for Major League Veterans, right? Because the prospects can’t help this year anyway…but years down the road they may have been able to…These guys ARE NOT PROSPECTS. They can help the club now. That is the problem I’ve had all along with the trade ideas. You want to talk about trading prospects, talk about prospects.

By: CCW

CCW — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:05:47 +0000

Unlike other folks who argue in favor of trading Jones for Bedard, Stone at least is asking the right questions. The the gateway question is whether, with Bedard (and without Jones) the M’s have a real shot of beating the Angels. Stone thinks the Angels aren’t greatly improved and that the M’s, with Bedard, ought to be able to keep up with them.

This, I think, is where he goes wrong. Stone is hoping rather than doing the analysis.

The Angels *are* better than they were last year. The Hunter signing may not have been great, but in 2008, Hunter will add 3-4 wins as compared to what the Angels were running out in Center Field last year. Most people believe Ervin Santana will revert to 2006 form. Howie Kendrick will be healthy and back to being one of the best young middle infielders in the game. Kotchman is only getting better. Vlad will benefit from some DH time. The Angels have two catchers who are both under 27 and improving. They are going to be as good, or better than last year.

Meanwhile, the M’s were a flukey 88-win team last year. Based on runs scored and allowed, they should have finished a few games under .500. They lost Guillen (and won’t have Jones to replace him, and are getting older and presumably worse at several positions. They might be 3-4 wins better with Bedard but that only gets them to 85 wins.

So, the question is, do trade Jones (and others) to create an 85-win team? I don’t think so.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:52:30 +0000

Jim might have been asserting that the M’s don’t seem willing to platoon, so any platoon player will either end up facing pitchers he can’t hit 200 times a year (thus canceling out some of his benefit), or not play regularly, and just get occasional playing time like Willie.

Now, why is that? Since McLaren seems to be following this, it has to be an organizational philosophy of late. So where’s it coming from? And why? (Because I’m pretty sure you can successful, even World Series successful, through platooning…)

By: Jim Thomsen

Jim Thomsen — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:12:16 +0000

D’oh! Sorry about the handedness error. But, geez … thinking of giving a key role to a grab-bag 30-year-old outfielder? Come on.

By: marc w

marc w — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:09:34 +0000

That *is* a good point, Evan – the M’s could get a hell of a lot more out of the pieces they already have if they’d just use them intelligently.
But it’s not just crazy talk to say that Scott could play every day in RF. Would that be ideal? No, it clearly wouldn’t be. But it’s not as dumb as sticking Ben Broussard in RF every day, or sticking Vidro at 2B or anything like that.
Luke’s got a horrible reputation for massive platoon splits and non-existant defense.
On the former, while his splits against LHs are worse, they’re not absolute line-up killers esp. when factoring in the number of LH starters he’d face. He averaged about a .900 OPS vs. Lefties at Round Rock (in 2005 and 2006) and hit .777 against them in MLB in 2006. That’s not awesome (at least the MLB number isn’t), but it’s not something to quash the deal assuming you can’t platoon the guy.
And on the latter, it surprised me too, but he actually rates as a fine defender according to some PBP metrics. OK, small sample size and all that, but he’s played enough over 2 years to suspect that it isn’t just a fluke.

In short, it would make *some* sense even if you assume he’s deployed sub-optimally.