Comments on: Morrow to Tacoma, For Real

By: Axtell

Axtell — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:56:06 +0000

I am of the mind, seemingly like the folks here at USSM, that the team can be both buyers and sellers…that a team can be both a contender this year as well as in the future.

It shouldn’t be seen as a this year/next year move, it should be seen as a move that makes the team better, both now and in the future. Moves like this are moves the previous regimes would never have made (just like trading away Yuni, getting a real outfield that can play defense, etc.). I’m loving the new style of front office agenda.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:42:18 +0000

Morrow is not really an asset in the rotation right now: there are other pitchers already on the 40 man who can get the same results he does. So you really should send him down to develop his potential regardless of what you think about the team’s chances this year. Whether he contributes to them contending in ‘09 (or the postseason) is really dependent on how quickly he develops in Tacoma, which is something I don’t think anybody can predict. But if the M’s are still in a pennant race in the last weeks in September, how great would it be to have a much-improved Morrow down there as one more weapon to throw into the fight?

By: djw

djw — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:37:21 +0000

By this move, can we infer anything about whether the FO views the team as contenders?

Not really–from where I sit this move is designed to help them in the present and 2010 and beyond.

By: Slippery Elmer

Slippery Elmer — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:17:50 +0000

By this move, can we infer anything about whether the FO views the team as contenders? Or, are 2009’s potential results simply inconsequential vis à vis Morrow’s development?

I can’t decide whether this means the brass thinks the team can contend in 2009 and thus should field the best possible starting rotation, or whether they think 2009 is a lost cause and thus should concentrate on Morrow getting better the “right way” so they can contend in 2010.

(Or both?)

By: mironos

mironos — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:12:02 +0000

The move we all knew had to be made.

Though as I read this, and then the Drayer piece, I was getting confused…ok, they sent Morrow down, but why wasn’t anyone mentioning who they brought up to fill his roster spot? Did they bring RRS back up? Carp?

Then I saw tonight’s starting third baseman. Oh yeah.

By: Quancy12

Quancy12 — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:17:58 +0000

Better late than never.

By: Jay Yencich

Jay Yencich — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:44:46 +0000

I have a RR-S post on the back burner that I’ve been working on. It might be up sometime next week. I’m not convinced he’s ready either, but he seems to be getting closer.

By: diderot

diderot — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:42:46 +0000

Excellent move, and overdue.

By: Tek Jansen

Tek Jansen — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:42:23 +0000

So Josh Wilson gets play another day . . . where he won’t actually do any sort of playing.

I trust that the Wakamatsu and the rest of the coaching staff have judged Olson the best 4th starter as of now. If they felt RR-S was ready, he would probably be up here.

It was also interesting to note how Wak puts the responsibility on Morrow shake to his curveball. I can’t really blame Joh for not believing that Morrow could throw if for a strike when he was behind in the count so often.

By: Nik Aitken

Nik Aitken — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:30:47 +0000

It’s the right thing to do. We need to start the pitcher who gives us the best chance of winning and at the moment, Morrow isn’t in the top 4.

Hopefully he’ll come back recharged, and grab a hold of a spot in the rotation for a good while.