Pick One DH. Just One.
Since the Mariners predictably decided to do nothing at the trade deadline, the team and the local media have repeated one primary talking point: we didn’t want to trade impending free agents because we want to re-sign them for 2014. In the post-deadline press briefing, Zduriencik said this:
“When you let a guy leave, it is harder to get him back. Once you break that marriage up and all of a sudden you want to go back and ask that player to come back? It’s harder to do. He probably feels somewhat betrayed. The guys are here, they have the right to walk but also we have the first opportunity to re-sign them if we choose to do that, and that is important to a player, especially if they like Seattle. Who knows what is going to happen? We’re going to be able to have the inside track in bringing some of these players back here. That was part of the thinking as well.”
The obvious player being talked about here is Kendrys Morales. Because of the qualifying offer system, the Mariners can essentially nuke his value as a free agent this winter and force him to either accept a two or maybe three year deal or play out 2014 on a one year contract for $14 million. The talk that the Mariners could net a first round pick for Morales is mostly incorrect; there just isn’t going to be much of a market for Morales once draft pick compensation attaches. The Mariners leverage is being able to make him a free agent with baseball’s equivalent of leprosy, forcing him to pick between a one year deal or a short term contract at a slightly lower AAV.
We covered all this ground in June, when I noted that the Mariners didn’t need to sign Morales to an extension then because of the qualifying offer. There’s a decent argument to be made for retaining Morales, though it’s probably worth noting that if he ends up accepting the qualifying offer, paying Morales $14 million for 2014 is less than ideal, given all the other holes the team has to fill this winter. He might be worth it, especially with the fact that the deal comes with no long term risk, but it’s not any kind of bargain, and keeping Morales at that price would likely prevent the team from making other necessary upgrades.
But, there is some logic and reason to not trading Morales. The qualifying offer is a real piece of leverage that they would have lost if they had traded him. Without knowing what was on the table, I don’t have much of a problem with the Mariners hanging onto Morales and using the QO to try and get him re-signed to a two or three year deal at around $10 million per year.
But here’s the problem. If you’re keeping Kendrys Morales when there’s a significant shortage of offensive pieces available in the trade market, you’re doing so for the sole purpose of re-signing him this winter. And if you re-sign Kendrys Morales, you’re re-signing him to play DH. And if you’re re-signing Kendrys Morales to DH, then you simply shouldn’t have any interest in bringing back either Raul Ibanez or Michael Morse.
I know, I know, Raul is the Golden Boy who can do no wrong. He hit a bunch of homers. He’s beloved in the clubhouse. He’s a great guy. I heard you the first 10,000 times you shoved your Raul Ibanez affection down our throats. He’s still a highly flawed player whose sole value at this point is as a part-time designated hitter. His outfield defense has never been good and has reached embarrassing levels. Whatever offensive value you think he might retain at age 42 will be given back on defense.
Since the start of the 2010 season, Ibanez has accumulated almost 2,000 plate appearances. He’s hit .254/.315/.453, which equals out to a 106 wRC+, making him a slightly above average hitter. That’s what he’s done from 38-41. Yeah, he keeps himself in great shape, yada yada yada, but he’s still getting older, and the laws of nature still apply. If you honestly expect Raul Ibanez to be a productive player in 2014, you’re believing in wishes rather than reality.
And, really, the same thing goes for Michael Morse. Like Ibanez, Morse is simply a one trick pony who is basically terrible at every part of baseball that isn’t hitting home runs. Unlike Ibanez, Morse is also injury prone and unreliable. You could make a case that Morse could be decent DH next year, and perhaps even a lower cost alternative to Morales if the team wanted to keep him around. But he also should never play the field. He might even be worse defensively than Ibanez, which is saying something, and his over-muscled body tends to break down when he forces himself to run with any kind of frequency.
If you’re re-signing Morales, then there simply is not room on the roster for Michael Morse. You could perhaps make an argument that Ibanez could fill a bench role, except we already know how that story plays out, as having him around simply means that he’s going to play more than he should. This organization is not capable of admitting that Raul Ibanez is a poor baseball player, and they won’t be able to admit it next year either.
Plain and simple, logic demands that the 2014 Mariners pick one and discard two. They can have Morales, Morse, or Ibanez, but they can’t have all three. It doesn’t work. The team tried this silly defense-doesn’t-matter strategy already and it blew up in their face. The team is last in UZR and last in DRS, and not coincidentally, they’re 25th in runs allowed. This roster construction experiment was a failure. It should not be repeated.
The fact that the Mariners didn’t trade Morse, Morales, or Ibanez doesn’t bother me all that much, simply because I doubt the offers on the table for Morse and Ibanez were particularly good. Other teams understand that these are two limited players with limited value, and Jack’s track record doesn’t suggest that he and his staff would have been able to identify players worth targeting anyway. Keeping tradable assets that other teams may have been interested in might be silly, but I doubt it hurt the Mariners that much, given the group of people that would have been in charge of making the trades.
However, keeping those tradable assets because the organization is still deluded enough to think that they’re the foundation of a winning team? That’s a serious problem. Retaining one of Morales, Morse, and Ibanez is defensible, but only one of them. The Mariners cannot run three DHs out in the field again next year. It’s time for the organization and the people that cover the team on a daily basis to just man up and admit that the plan that was put in place was a poor one and the team needs to move on and try to get players that can actually play the field again.
There simply isn’t room on a winning team for Kendrys Morales, Michael Morse, and Raul Ibanez. Pick one and wish the other two good luck finding jobs with AL teams that need a DH. It might take some pride swallowing and some actual reflection on why the 2013 Mariners haven’t been very good, but if the people in charge of the team aren’t capable of that, then they shouldn’t be in charge of the team any more.
Using Bavasi’s performance as a measurement comparison for Z is a poor way to evaluate and pretty easily lead you to a path of loss aversion. The Bavasi era would make most current GMs look good.
In that time frame that Z has been GM the Pirates, Nationals and Orioles. All three have come from fairly similar places in the standings to solid top of the league competitors.
This is the bar that needs to be the used for Z’s evaluation, not a comparison to Bavasi.
There is some wiggle room considering the state Bavasi left the payroll and farm system in, but in my opinion that wiggle room is not wide enough to tolerate the teams current major league roster.
I would agree that should the whole trio of Morse, Ibanez and Morales be brought back, that would be convincing evidence to me that the FO has shifted gears considerably from the decision making process that they have demonstrated in the past. My belief in the FO is somewhat predicated on the assumption that current OF/DH roster was not Plan A or Plan B, but were moves made to try to make any sort of improvement to the major league roster, as imperfect as those moves may have been (for the obvious OF defense reasons).
It didn’t really improve the MLB roster, though. Bay+Morse+Ibanez has netted us a grand total of .1 WAR in 800+ PAs, if you go by Fangraphs. So we’ve spent around 10 million dollars for unquantifiable clubhouse chemistry and replacement-level on the field play.
I don’t see any way you can count that as anything other than a big fat FAIL when it comes to roster management and talent evaluation. When you combine that with Saunders regressing and Gutierrez being predictably fragile, the mess in the OF/DH position is a big reason why 2013 was a lost year- the M’s totally messed these decisions up, to the tune of 10 million dollars that could have been spent elsewhere improving the team, and losing a cost-controlled player (John Jaso) at a critical position (C) by completely muffing the evaluation on Montero to boot.
Hey, everyone who thinks Zduriencik’s a genius: do you think this 2013 team would be a better team if we weren’t playing a random assortment of ancient veteran catchers from the waiver wire every night, instead of having 43,325 DH’s?
This is the bar that needs to be the used for Z’s evaluation, not a comparison to Bavasi.
Bingo. Apparently the Nationals, Pirates and Orioles didn’t get the memo that they had five+ years to build contenders through the draft, and screwed it up by actually being competent at other things too.
For a garden to grow you need soil, you need seeds, you need sun, and you need water. You can’t control the weather, and if you try and water the soil before you plant the seeds nothing is going to happen.
The draft, and farm system, are like the water source, and the hose. Free Agency, and the Trade Market are the weather.
In Mega Man, the longer you hold “Fierce Punch”, the bigger and stronger the fireball gets.
Via Wikipedia: The Mega Man Killers are a series of robots appearing in the Game Boy series. The Mega Man Killers are robots created by
Dave CameronDoctor Wily to destroy Mega Man, who in turn defeats each one of them and eventually foils Wily’s most devious schemes.My point is, Jack Zduriencik is standing in your garden, dressed like Mega Man, loading up a massive fireball, and when he let’s go of it, you’re all going to be kissing his feet.
E Coward,
I have not written, nor I have I seen it written anywhere in this thread that Z is a genius. In fact, what I wrote was the moves he made this offseason were far from perfect and I admit that thinking they were not Plan A/B was an assumption.
I have the view that he has demonstrated enough success/good process with moves in the past to continue on as GM. I get the frustration with the lack of results on the major league team and am also frustrated by it. It stinks. Based on the lack of results, I can see why there are those calling for a change in the FO. Hey, perhaps the team is better off with another FO. I personally don’t share that view, but if you have that opinion, ok.
@Athanasius on August 2nd, 2013 3:20 pm
This strikes me as a common management mistake – succumbing to the notion that someone is “good enough”. After five years on the job, the executive in charge of the show should have enough data to know if someone filling a critical slot under them is the “best” person for the job. If the goal is to be “the best”, and that person is someone about whom you cannot unequivocally say that person is “the best”, then it is time to make a change. “Good enough” might be acceptable for a receptionist; “good enough” is not tolerable for a the client manager for a key account, for example.
When an executive decides to not take action on a key position because the person occupying the position is “good enough”, the message is that “being the best” is not a key goal of the organization. This is a case where actions speak much louder than any kind of words. And if you are an executive, and a person has been working for you for five years and you are not capable of definitively saying “yea’ or “nay” as to whether an underling filling a key role is the “best” person to fill the slot, then the problem is you, not the underling.
Z took over the Mariners in the fall of 2008. He’s five years in. Theo Epstein took over the Cubs in the fall of 2011. He’s two years in. The Cubs have approximately the same record as the Mariners. Epstein took over an organization that was arguably in worse shape than the M’s.
Does anybody believe that five years into Epstein’s career with the Cubs that they will still be treading water and making dumb moves like Z has? If the answer to that question is no, then how do you justify Z keeping his job?
EC, I don’t want Z to keep on; I want him fired. In the previous post, you’ll see I’m frustrated with Z. I don’t know why you think I’m defending Z; I was just saying I was for keep Ackley for another year. ??
And just for a bit of pause here.
A key part of Z’s job is, shall we say, “employee relations”. Even if he was trying to trade someone, he still can’t say to someone on the roster, “we really don’t want you any more”. So even if he doesn’t really mean it, he’s kind of obligated to come out with statement to the effect that “we like the guys we’ve got and we want to build on that”.
Judge him by what does (ample ammunition there certainly) but not by what he serves up for public consumption.
Again, you say Z says is simple PR. But lots of people said what Z said about Bay’s signing was simple PR. Turned out to not be the case, and we suffered through more than half a year of Bay.
Maybe Z says is actually true. In any case, you don’t know and I don’t know until next year (if Z is kept on).
No. He’s not obligated to say anything. GMs are good about saying nothing if that’s what they want.
Steve Nelson,
Point taken. Player evaluation is difficult based on the variability of results in the game of baseball, hence the process vs results argument as a means for evaluation. I wasn’t trying to state that the FO’s results were “good enough” but as a whole, that the process was there in my estimation, especially considering the development (or lack thereof) of young players in trying to discern the “best.”
Ultimately, everyone’s work is evaluated on results. If I’m not getting results for an extended period of time, neither will my job be for much longer.
The draft, and farm system, are like the water source, and the hose. Free Agency, and the Trade Market are the weather.
Right, because there’s less risk with draft picks? Are draft picks more predictable than the weather? Any idea how many actually pan out? Any idea how long it takes to even find out if someone’s going to pan out? Time is a factor. You have that completely backwards.
It’s important to work smart and efficiently from all angles. Jack has yet to show he can do that. Argue all you want, but if you break down every trade, free agent signing and the corresponding moves, along with promotions and the corresponding moves with those that Jack has made, it isn’t a surprise that this team has sucked, still has no outfield depth, and nothing to move forward with (in the outfield). Even if Romero makes the cut, it’s not enough. But counting on position changes to fill holes isn’t a great plan. Counting on aging veterans with no defense isn’t a great plan either. Neither is trading valuable pieces in a lateral move.
Not all of Jacks moves have been terrible. Nobody’s arguing otherwise. But the overall record isn’t good. Why any of you feel confident that will suddenly change is beyond me. Jack hasn’t been trying to field a losing team each year.
AAthanasius on August 2nd, 2013 4:32 pm
Appreciated. And I hope the point is that Jack Z. isn’t really the problem. The problem is that either:
1. For Lincoln and Armstrong being “the best” isn’t truly their goal (public statements to the contrary notwithstanding); or
2. They aren’t qualified for their positions because they don’t have the required to convert “being the best” into reality.
Under their tenure, the Mariners have had four GMs, all of whom were cut from essentially the same cloth – Woodward, Gillick, Bavasi, and Zduriencik. There is certainly a range in their abilities on the job, but in their basic sensibilities they are all pretty much the same. It’s hard to conclude those are not the same sensibilities in the executive suite, since they not have close to 20 years of continuous operating experience on that basis.
We can get rid of Jack Z, but when the winnow down the list of candidates is almost a dead certainty that the person who replaces Jack will not be fundamentally different. Perhaps he will be better (or worse) at performing within that framework, but we shouldn’t expect the team to head in a totally new direction.
Under their tenure, the Mariners have had four GMs, all of whom were cut from essentially the same cloth – Woodward, Gillick, Bavasi, and Zduriencik. There is certainly a range in their abilities on the job, but in their basic sensibilities they are all pretty much the same.
Good luck selling that.
For anyone who has decided that Z’s good moves mean he’s a good manager, or his bad moves mean he’s a bad manager, I strongly recommend you give this a read: http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2013/7/12/4505380/jack-zduriencik-transaction-history-lack-of-big-free-agent-moves-has
It’s – in my opinion – a pretty well balanced piece that reminds us that Z’s moves have been pretty solid throughout.
It’s referenced over here in the last one or two days.
(And no, I don’t think he’s proven that Z’s moves have been solid.)
^Stole the words right out of my mouth!
The thing about Z is that his bad luck has been awful– and let’s face it, “quantifying” what happens with professional baseball prospects is pretty random and luck-based.
Figgins, Ackley, Smoak and Montero were ALL heralded moves when they happened… Yet nothing good has come from them. Even those not high on the Figgins move didn’t predict the wretchedness he would become.
If just two of those 4 panned out, “rebuilding” would have happened at a different speed and taken us in different directions, and the pieces being sought out the past two years would have been different.
Instead, we’re where we are. I don’t apologize for Z, but I also am not willing to ignore that he took over a team that was basically at expansion level with its minor league system when he started, and now has more than a handful of guys ready to be in the big leagues, each season. If we had been a winning organization when he arrived, Ackley, Seager, and Smoak likely would have been making their MLB debuts in 2013, beginning their careers much more seasoned, and incredibly likely to have better overall numbers after the same number of seasons in the majors (if they were just NOW starting their careers).
Someone used the “planting a garden” reference, but I think an analogy of the board game “Risk” is better… In your early moves, if the dice doesn’t roll your way, you end up taking WAY longer to build up your troops to the level of being able to take a risk and try to win it all. Even if the dice DO roll in your favor, if you try to go for it too early and fail, you leave yourself defenseless and depleted.
I see a GM being slow and methodical. I also see a guy willing to learn, and try new ways to win. Defense first! Dingers? Veterans and kids…? We haven’t had the resources to try any other way, yet? Meanwhile, he has stocked our system as well as anyone in the league over the past 5 years (ie, with prospects).
This all doesn’t convince me that he can be a good GM. But it also doesn’t convince me he can’t.
So yeah, both keeping him, or letting him go, could be a success, or a failure. Toss the coin. Only time will tell.
But hey, it’s baseball! That’s the way it works.
Nobody was betting lots of money on either of the Giants’ two World Series winning seasons. And nobody was betting money on the A’s winning the West last season… Or would have bet on them winning it two years in a row (if it happens).
@stevemotivateir on August 2nd, 2013 5:09 pm
I don’t need to sell it. It is what it is. In their basic approach to the job, all four of them have held forth similar values (which appears to me to be a critical element for the currrent ownership), but with differing degrees of success.
IMHO current ownership is much more driven to find the next Gillick than they are the next Epstein. Based on past history in filling the GM spot, I doubt that the next Epstein would even make it past preliminary interviews because he or she wouldn’t be a “good fit”.
^It’s not what you think it is. There are notable differences among those names and each had a considerably different approach. I realize you recognize that, but it sounds like you’re brushing it off. They all likely had some of the same stipulations and limitations imposed on them from Chuck and Howard, but all GM’s face that to some extend.
There’s nothing wrong with finding another Gillick rather than an Epstein if that guy can field a winning team and restock where necessary, though Gillick didn’t do the greatest job with the lower levels.
Point is, it’s not fair to lay all the fault on Chuck and Howard. They may deserve part of the blame, but the GM’s the guy making the key decisions. It’s hard take excuses for Jack seriously while we’ve watched Beane create very good Oakland teams for years, and other teams like the Diamond Backs and Orioles rebound/rebuild in a shorter stretch. Chuck and Howard may have criteria that you/we would consider picky. That doesn’t mean the results are guaranteed to be the same. There is a huge grey area and I’m eager to see a new face do his best to make this team better.
I like the level-headed approach of the article on Lookout Landing linked by McExpos.
But we need to look not only at the results but also at the underlying processes. And, as far as last offseason is concerned, they are a bit concerning. Letting go Jaso for Morse, chosing Bay over Wells, believing that Montero is viable as an every-day catcher are the issues, here, and they have certainly been discussed to death here and elsewhere.
In 2013, John Jaso has basically the same OPS as Michael Morse (.757 vs .759) and has played in 11 more games.
^True, but the OBP is lopsided between the two. Jaso’s sitting at .387 and hitting at or near the top of the order, Morse is at .304. His SLG is considerably higher that Jaso’s this year, but most of his HR’s have been solo shots. And for what it’s worth, Morse has been terrible with RISP. Jaso hasn’t. K’s & BB’s favor Jaso as well.
I know you’re not arguing Morse being a better player, just wanted to dig into the OPS thing a little because they’re very different players. RBI totals are similar, OPS is about the same, but not much else in common.
Jaso is also a catcher, most of whom suck offensively. If his OPS is the same as the outfielder he was traded for, that shows how valuable he is and how dumb that trade was on several levels.
I find this harsh criticism ironic in that it comes from a guy who wanted Jack to sign Hamilton for $150,000,000 instead of bringing in short-term, less expensive veterans who have all out-performed Hamilton and put the team in a much better position going forward (with or without bringing them back).