Comments on: Projecting The Staff

By: joser

joser — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:52:54 +0000

Well, by pythag the ‘07 M’s was a 79 win team that somehow won 88; the ‘08 team was a 67 win team that only won 61. So really, if Dave is right and they end up at a legitimate 78 wins, they’re right back to where they actually were two years ago (just not where Bavasi thought they were). The most unfortunate part is that those are two years out of the careers of Ichiro and Felix and Beltre that we (and they) won’t get back. (And the A’s are two years closer to a new stadium, though that appears to be retreating like a mirage).

By: Breadbaker

Breadbaker — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:34:29 +0000

JMHawkins, in the end, the M’s will have to acquire, by draft or trade or free agency or international scouting, more real stars (and probably have to replace one of their top win players in Beltre) to become seriously competitive. It’s either that or become the Pittsburgh Pirates West. We have a great opportunity in the 2009 amateur draft for the new management to show their stuff, and then it’s great player development activities and a lot of luck.

By: JMHawkins

JMHawkins — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:20:21 +0000

Not to be Wally Wet-Blanket here, but two years ago the M’s were probably an 81-82 win team (and ended up lucking into 88 wins). It’s great that they’ve “climbed back” to just barely below .500, but Holy Smokes. The damage done in the’07 offseason was massive.

And looking at the Future Forty, I don’t see another +10 wins coming out of the farm system any time soon (and really, we probably need +14 or so. The AL West won’t remain a weak division for very long – in a few years it will take 95+ wins again).

We’re moving in the right direction again, but the cart is a loooong way from getting the horse out of the woods.

By: msb

msb — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:20:25 +0000

don't forget Denny Stark!

By: coasty141

coasty141 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:01 +0000

“If I’m reading the chart correctly, the number one thing that could happen that could actually move the numbers in the M’s favor is if Bedard pitches significantly more than 130 innings”

Agreed. I don’t know what is a realistic expectation for how many innings Bedard should pitch in 09 but he is pretty darn good when he’s on the hill. Lets hope he can continue to be effective. BTW in 05 Bedard pitched 141 innings and it was worth 3.2 wins.

By: Breadbaker

Breadbaker — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:41:43 +0000

If I’m reading the chart correctly, the number one thing that could happen that could actually move the numbers in the M’s favor is if Bedard pitches significantly more than 130 innings. Because every inning he took from any of the relievers is an improvement. We don’t want Morrow or Felix overworked, but we actually don’t have any incentive with Bedard. So as long as he’s healthy, he’s the wild card to improvement.

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:12:43 +0000

He’s not, really, if you look at the chart, but he is a ~1 WAR starter.

Washburn is basically a well-paid and somewhat less effective version of Jamie Moyer.

By: coasty141

coasty141 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:23:41 +0000

How or why is Wash better than Silva?

By: BobbyAyalaFan4Life

BobbyAyalaFan4Life — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:23:15 +0000

This hasn’t stopped Bowden before.

It worked when we dealt them Snelling, but I’m not sure there’s a contract I want to eat to make it worth while (like Vidro’s). Maybe a bite on a Wlad/Fruto-esque current reliever prospect for Johnson? Seems a stretch…
Aaron M.

By: Jeff Nye

Jeff Nye — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:16:47 +0000

It’s important to make a distinction between Washburn being bad, and Washburn not being worth what we’re paying for him.

The former can be debated a bit but he’s still better than Silva or RRS; the latter isn’t really up for much debate, I don’t think.