| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 04-12-2011 |
Here we are 10 games into the season heading into Tuesday night's game with the Toronto Blue Jays and I already want the club to make one change.No, it's not replacing Doug Fister with Blake Beavan or sending Tom Wilhelmsen to Triple-A in favor of Dan Cortes or even benching Chone Figgins in favor of Monday night's hero Luis Rodriguez.
The Seattle Mariners need to Free Michael Saunders. No, I don't think the club should trade him, I think they need to sit Ryan Langerhans and Milton and let Saunders play every day. Every day. Not five days out of seven or six in a 7-game week -- every single day.
Larry Stone of the Seattle Times wrote about this Sunday and suggests that he's earning more time with his play, and after he (and Justin Smoak) had a a strong game again in the series opener versus Toronto, there's no reason to take him out of the lineup for any reason other than injury.
The new mechanics, one in which he's not only shortened the swing but completely eliminated the load and timing mechanism and is now more reminiscent to John Olerud, have given him new life. The power is still there thanks to the bat speed, and he's able to stay back and react to the breaking ball while covering good velocity.
He's also shown a couple of times that he can go the other way, including Monday versus left-hander David Purcey when he worked the count and laced a line drive single to left-center field.
Saunders has also drawn a couple walks and both of his hits in Monday's comeback victory were rather important, especially the double in the ninth.
It's just time to stop forcing Saunders to light up the box score to earn consistent playing time. He's a better defender than Bradley, about on par with Langerhans and is a better base runner than both.
Most importantly, he has a much brighter future and may actually be a valuable piece to the next winner in Seattle, and every game he's on the bench, except for the occasional day to rest -- no matter the opposing pitcher -- is a waste and the wrong play by manager Eric Wedge and the Seattle Mariners.
free-michael-saunders
Comments
The following 54 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: PositivePaul on 04-12-2011 19:47:41 I'm all for that! Milton's been quite good and saving him from the field by making him the DH may help his psyche and his health. Cuts has turned into a 2TO guy (BB or K), too, so I'm fine with Milton taking over the DH spot. I don't normally see things anywhere close to as well as you do, J, but even I can see Saunders' improved swing. His swing on that double in the ninth last night was the sweetest swing I've seen since Griffey. It was GORGEOUS! Unlike last year at this time and early in Spring, he's shown that he finally can look comfortable at the plate. I'm never shy to admit I'm wrong and I had major doubts about Saunders ever being able to tap into the talent I kept hearing he had. I just never saw him becoming anything more than a platoon 5th OF. Clearly he's better than that. I'm in! |
| 2. By: PositivePaul on 04-12-2011 19:49:06 *Cust (DamnYouAutoCorrect.com!) |
| 3. By: Edman on 04-12-2011 20:16:57 I'm optimistic about Saunders, however, I don't think it's time to simply hand him playing time. It needs to continue just as it is. He plays well, he earns playing time. Langerhans has never shown any ability to be more than a 4th outfielder. And, he's good at it. Bradley, on the other hand needs to be in the lineup. If you sit Cust a few games, fine. Right now, Bradley is a bit better than Cust. I'm all for Saunders being in the lineup on a regular basis, but not without continued success. This is a but a few games. We don't crown batting champions after ten games, and they shouldn't give away playing time, until it's earned. I doubt that with this lack of production in the lineup, they can afford to sit Saunders, so it's a moot point. But, he has to show that it's not a fluke. |
| 4. By: Josh B on 04-12-2011 20:19:09 It looks like he can get around balls that are low and inside now, but I'm still worried about how he'll hit the rest of those inside strikes. I didn't see the game yesterday, but I still remember him looking pretty helpless in a couple recent strikeouts when the ball was near his hands. He couldn't get around on him. Other than that, yeah he really does look confident up at the plate this year compared to last. I hope the can keep it up. |
| 5. By: nighthawk180 on 04-12-2011 20:24:50 I've been thinking the same thing. I haven't been able to understand the love affair with Langerhans. I've always thought of Langerhans as a decent 4 OF not a everyday or 5 out of 7 game player. On a lesser not I saw on Shannon's blog that the tear in Moore's knee is pretty bad and he will be out for 4 to 6 months. I've had knee surgery myself and know that if the tear in the meniscus is bad enough that it frays/tears get jammed in the joint causing the knee joint to lock up. I read that's what happened when he injured it. I guess my question regarding this is because he is a catcher I would assume he is out for the rest of the season but could it be a career ender because of his position and the stress it has on the knee? |
| 6. By: rocketdawg31 on 04-12-2011 20:45:14 Couldn't agree more, Jase. I've been sold that The Condor is a usable piece- one that can be a regular contributor to a winning ballclub- for a few months now. Give the man a free path to the 500 ABs he needs in a ML season. |
| 7. By: Lailoken on 04-12-2011 21:09:12 'Cuts' is a fine partially ironic nickname for a guy who takes lots of pitches but also swings & misses. I like it. Double-bonus for anagram nickname. Couldn't agree more regarding Saunders. DTFT can take it slow, Saunders is looking good in CF & that swing is worlds better than last year. Despite a four-walk night & a couple home runs in the early going Langerhans still has trouble making contact. While he is a fine backup OF he need not stand in the way of a future starter & major piece in the rebuilding puzzle. I can see the argument in getting Bradley & Cust at bats so they can possibly be moved at the deadline with some salary relief but ultimately developing Saunders is far more important. |
| 8. By: StandinPat on 04-12-2011 21:13:38 "I don't think it's time to simply hand him playing time" "Langerhans has never shown any ability to be more than a 4th outfielder" So then why wouldn't Saunders get more playing time over Langerhans? He's improved his swing, brings things to the table that the other options don't and actually has a future with this team. Michael has "earned" the opportunity more than Langerhans has, so why wouldn't you give him more PT? |
| 9. By: Lailoken on 04-12-2011 21:50:28 Blue Jays DFA Purcey. Looking to trade him. Might be a solid piece in the bullpen. The flyball tendencies aren't so bad in Safeco & the velocity at 28 is solid. He's been averaging over 93 mph this year & was solid with a 3.67 FIP last year in 34 innings. He also posted a 8.47 K/9 last year. |
| 10. By: Jason A. Churchill on 04-12-2011 23:11:15 One thing a hitter will tell you right off the bat about getting better is consistent playing time. This is the season to get Saunders that time as long as he's working hard and hovering right around Langerhans' production or better, which isn't hard to do. There's so little reward in playing Langerhans/Bradley over Saunders. The only thing the team has to be careful of is allowing a loss of focus or attitude and still running the kid out there. But that isn't going to happen with Saunders, because his first name isn't Chone. |
| 11. By: micahjr on 04-13-2011 01:10:45 He hit two balls really well today that weren't hits, an opposite field slash that was just foul, and a long line drive that stayed up just a little too long in the gap. Both swings were against a good left-hander. He's been patient, and playing good defense. Free Michael Saunders! |
| 12. By: safecochatter on 04-13-2011 01:40:09 i was leaning toward getting off the Saunders bandwagon. but after seeing the new swing,i think your right on the money Jason. and what's nice about Saunders is he can play all three outfield positions well.which could makes him a very valuable piece in the rebuild. |
| 13. By: sexymarinersfan on 04-13-2011 05:31:19 Although Langerhans is on pace for 44 Homeruns this season!? |
| 14. By: lewis on 04-13-2011 10:58:21 I like Cuts. Way more better! |
| 15. By: Edman on 04-13-2011 11:28:16 I'm feeling so much better about the division in the near future. Why you may ask? Well, because we're going to get an influx of talented young players, in the near future. Second, Texas is spending money and digging themselves into a financial hole. $15 Million for Leonys Martin, really? Yeeehawwww, just keep on spending money like you can print all you want. He may be talented, but he's nothing like the same kind of talent that Chapman is. Things are looking brighter with each move the Rangers have made, lately. Just my opinion, mind you, but if these moves don't work, they'll be much like the M's the last few years. |
| 16. By: Mackie on 04-13-2011 12:29:02 I think it IS time to simply hand Saunders the LF job. Let's see what he can do as a full-time player. He has shown growth already since last season; I believe he will continue to grow, and that he is a player on the way up. To not use him as a regular does him (and the ballclub) a disservice, if for no other reason than that the more they play him, the better an idea they know of what they really have in him. Winning games if the ultimate goal, and it keeps fans coming to the ballpark; at the same time, this season is about growth for the Mariners. So I also think it will be time in a couple of months, if Milton Bradley stays healthy and productive, to shop him aggressively, get a warm body in exchange for him, and eat a bunch of the rest of his salary, if they can make that work. Gutierrez will be back at some point to play CF, and the team can keep Langerhans as a backup outfielder. Ichiro, Gutierrez and Saunders will be a decent outfield to take the team through the remainder of the season. If they have to keep Milton, he can be a 4th outfielder. Give Saunders the playing time, he is more valuable to the future of the ball club! |
| 17. By: bilbo on 04-13-2011 12:48:58 Right now it is easy as you can platoon Langerhans and Bradley in the OF and Bradley/Cust at DH. Where it will get really interesting will be when Guti comes back. But I absolutely agree that Saunders has to play almost every day at this point. If for no other reason than to see what they have or don't have in him for the future. |
| 18. By: maqman on 04-13-2011 13:03:48 I agree with Jason all the way on this one. We need to find out what he can do as an every day player. |
| 19. By: slamcactus on 04-13-2011 13:06:34 Don't be so quick to write Martin off, Edman. He could make JD look pretty damn smart in a couple years. The fact that the Rangers made zero impact signings in Latin America last year likely takes the sting out of that signing bonus a bit. They typically spend a few million per year on July 2 guys. If Martin develops into a Denard Span clone the Rangers will more than recoup their investment in him. |
| 20. By: dewey on 04-13-2011 13:24:00 #15 Edman have you ever seen Martin play? If not how would you no that he isnt that good of a prospect? Also Chapman got 35 million not 15..im just saying |
| 21. By: tommyt on 04-13-2011 13:45:43 I agree with Lewis. Cuts > Cust |
| 22. By: Edman on 04-13-2011 13:52:43 No, I haven't seen Martin play. But, I haven't seen the baseball world going nuts over his talent, either. $15 million is a lot to invest in any player from Latin America, aans Chapman type talent. When those kind of guys are available, the whole baseball world is buzzing about it. Martin may be talented, but if they're wrong, they're $15 million wrong. The more risks like that the Rangers take, the happier I am. |
| 23. By: rhettfieldsted on 04-13-2011 13:59:01 just saw Saunders isn't in the lineup today...and I'm seriously upset, mostly because you convinced me to be |
| 24. By: dewey on 04-13-2011 15:39:36 Yes 15 million is alot of money but we where 36 m illion wrong on Figgins 36 million wrong on Silva 5 mikllion wrong on Jack Wilson.I think there our so many mistakes made on players .The Cubans seem to be the hardest to scout because you dont see them as much i for one hope Texas is wrong . |
| 25. By: slamcactus on 04-13-2011 16:45:44 15 million for a talented, plus defensive CF who's excelled at a level that's considered to play somewhere between High-A and Double-A is a gamble, sure, but not the huge gamble you're making it out to be. Teams take much larger gambles with aging veterans all the time, hoping they stave off their ultimate decline in usefulness long enough to return the value of the contract. I was much, much happier the day the Rangers inked Michael Young to that 5 year, $80 million extension. You want your rivals making deals where the absolute best-case scenario is they spend a ton of money to break even, not deals where they spend a substantial-but-by-no-means-crippling amount of money on a player with the potential to bring back 3-4X the value of the contract. |
| 26. By: Edman on 04-13-2011 17:10:46 #23, if you're going to let any one person's opinion guide you, I suggest that you may want to expand your horizons. To be seriously upset becaue Saunders sat out one day game, is nothing to worry about. If he sits out a few in a row, then you should worry. |
| 27. By: Edman on 04-13-2011 17:13:34 After looking at the updated gamecast, I'm more worried about Chris Ray being unable to stop runs from scoring, than anything to do with an outfielder. It may be time to consider the Chris Ray experiment over. I had hope that he'd recover, but he hasn't fooled anyone so far this year. |
| 28. By: Blowgun7 on 04-13-2011 17:38:50 I would just love to know the reasoning behind taking Wright (who hasn't given up a run in a month and a half) out of that game after one batter.. and bringing in that piece of garbage Chris Ray.. Just idiotic managing in my opinion |
| 29. By: slamcactus on 04-13-2011 17:41:50 26: the point is we want Saunders playing every day. We want to see him get 550-600 PAs of everyday playing time. Sitting every few days is not playing every day. There's ample evidence that sitting every day hurts offensive production. We'll never get to see what Michael Saunders can do as a regular if he doesn't play as one. And yes, he's earned the right to show us whether he belongs in the organization's long-term plans. Making him think he's gotta go 2-4 or better to play the next day doesn't do him or the team any favors, either now or in the long term. |
| 30. By: Edman on 04-13-2011 18:13:23 And setting him a day doesn't end his career. Some of you hinge on every game as if it is vitally important. The very future of the M's franchise does not depend on Michael Saunders playing every damn game. Last I saw, nobody at this site has any real time experience developing major league talent. Yes, I get that some folks here want it. But, it's kind of silly to complain every game that Saunders doesn't start. It's a long season, let's not worry about one game, at this point. |
| 31. By: rhettfieldsted on 04-13-2011 19:47:15 Jason is there anyway we can install a sarcasm button on the comment thread? |
| 32. By: StandinPat on 04-13-2011 20:05:57 "Last I saw, nobody at this site has any real time experience developing major league talent" That includes you. So why would your opinion on the matter be any more insightful or valid than theirs? And i don't think people here are all bent out of shape over one game. I think it's the fact that he's really been hitting up over the past four games and gets rewarded with a seat on the bench. Also, let's not sit here pretend like this is only one of a few games, he's sat 5 out of 12 so far. That is a trend that absolutely should not continue. |
| 33. By: Edman on 04-13-2011 20:31:11 Absolutely right, Pat. And, I don't claim to know what's best to make Saunders an everyday player. All I'm saying is we need to temper the mass enthusiasm over Saunders' brief hitting streak and not get bent out of shape if he sits a game. Perhaps Wedge wants to use him extensively in the next couple of series and thought it was a good day to give him a break. I don't really know. Wedge was part of developing some of Cleveland's young talent so he's familiar with handling kids like Michael. If he sets him for 5 of the next 10 games, I'd be worried. But, one game early in the season, not so much. He's still evaluating how pieces are going to fit. And, he's got some decisions to make when Guti is ready. And so what, he sat some games early on. What exactly did Saunders do last year that said he shouldn't have to earn his playing time? He didn't tear it up in Spring Training, as Langerhans did. He's been hitting lately, so he's been getting more playing time. That's how it's suppose to work, unless you're a veteran with a proven track record. |
| 34. By: dewey on 04-14-2011 04:16:56 OK i will say it Edman you our a no good shit disturber and most of us think you our a blow hard ! Go away You arent the only one who has good opinions but you think you our.I cant spell our write well but i do know people and you stink..No applause needed but thanks people..lol |
| 35. By: short on 04-14-2011 12:11:04 Right now the player that deserves to lose AB's is Cust. So until Gutierrez gets back they should keep this rotation of Bradley / Saunders / Langerhans in Left, Saunders / Langerhans in center and platoon Bradley at DH against all left-handed starters. When Guti gets back the tougher choice as to be made, and I just wish there was a way to cut Cust and make the DH platoon Langerhans and Bradley. Unlikely, though, so I hope they cut Langerhans...I guess. He's so much more useful than Cust right now, dammit. |
| 36. By: StandinPat on 04-14-2011 12:19:05 "And so what, he sat some games early on" Almost 42% of games overall and 33% of the last 6 is more than "some." "He didn't tear it up in Spring Training, as Langerhans did" That's not completely accurate either. Saunders was actually tearing it up after the changes in his swing, which has carried over into the regular season. And when a young player does everything his organization and coaches ask for him and implements a swing change on the fly and shows early success with said swing, how isn't that "earning" more playing time. To me that is the epitome of earning and deserving it. |
| 37. By: Mackie on 04-14-2011 12:51:26 There is always the possibility Guti could stink it up when he comes back. I think he will probably do fine with the glove and this his bat should be adequate, but because that is certainly not a given... I'm just playing devil's advocate, because I think many of us may be taking it for granted that he will come back and play like an All-Star. 8-) So what do the Mariners do if Guti comes back from the DL and rehab assignment in a few weeks, and then bats something like .189 with no homers for a month, say, between early May and June 1? |
| 38. By: rhettfieldsted on 04-14-2011 13:58:40 I think Dewey deserves regular playing time in the outfield for the Mariners for the awesome comment he just made, props. |
| 39. By: Edman on 04-14-2011 14:07:43 dewey, you know me? Lets see, I offer a counter opinion that doesn't match yours or others, and I'm disturbing the messageboard? Yet, you use a profanity laced post to take a shot at me, and tell me to go away, of which you have no right. Then, you decide to speak for others? Can you see where I'm going with this? Something about glass houses and stones? Pat, I'm glad you did the math, but who cares about high percentages over less than 10% of the overall games played? Saunders got better toward the end of Spring Training, but if you want to earn a job that isn't yours to hold on to, you have to do better than that. I know people here foam at the mouth for their favorite propects, as do I, but it is not Wedge and company's job to fulfill our desires. He's trying to ring out what he's got. And, since Saunders didn't play well enough last year to be given a position in LF, he has to earn it, not be given it because he's strung together a few game and improved his approach at the plate. Yes, those things do matter, but it's way too early to start complaining about him not getting playing time. All that said, yes, he's showing that he has the potential to fill the nearly decade long lack of production in left field. I have every hope that he'll do just that. My personal opinion is that he could become very similar to Choo as a hitter. He's making the right kind of progress. But, just as others have used small sample size in arguments about veteran players, the same should be done in regard to Saunders as well. Yes, it's good to see progress. And yes, Wedge needs to ring out if the change is permanent enough to fill the void in LF for now and the future. |
| 40. By: slamcactus on 04-14-2011 19:15:57 It is Wedge and Zduriencik's job to figure out how to build the next contending Mariners team. No part of that job can possibly be fulfilled by taking at-bats from Michael Saunders and giving them to Ryan Langerhans. Saunders has shown us what he can do at Triple-A. It's time for him to succeed or fail at the big league level. At what point has he "earned" the job, Edman? If all teams brought prospects along like you seem to want to, we'd miss out on a helluva lot of good players while watching a lot of crappy veterans play out their careers to relative degrees of suckitude because they're "entitled" to their playing time. This is the same line of thinking that kept Edgar Martinez in the minors until the age of 27, and it's a great blueprint for building a shitty baseball team. |
| 41. By: slamcactus on 04-14-2011 19:16:38 Also, you're really quoting spring training stats? Really? REALLY? I didn't think even you'd go that far to try and prove a point. Wow. |
| 42. By: acqb1424 on 04-14-2011 19:31:01 Jason, Chris or Rick, At one point it was mentioned that a piece would be coming out updating guys like Jose Valdiva. Is that still in the works? |
| 43. By: Edman on 04-14-2011 19:40:42 slam, what are your comments based on, about taking at bats away from Saunders? Why can't Langerhans fulfill the potential many had for him? Why is Saunders more worthy of playing time, than Langerhans? Because he's younger? Don't you think at one time, Ryan had major league potential? You don't think Ryan succeeded at AAA too? I'm saying neither Langerhans or Saunders has earned a job. You hand out jobs to those who earn them. And, slam, teams have brought players along just the way I've stated. And, the cream rises to the top. You act as if Langerhans is on his last legs. Cust, you might be able to make that argument about, but not Ryan. Every good major league player shares one thing in common, they beat out someone else to earn the job. Nowhere have I said, and please do quote where I have, that they should give Saunder's playing time to Langerhans. He's "earned" the job, when he can demonstrate that he is able to make adjustments, which he appears to have done. And, when he can "sustain" success. He's accomplished one of those things, but not both, yet. Lastly, show me where I quoted any Spring Training stats? Pat mentioned that Saunders deserved playing time based on a short stint of success at the end of Spring Training. I said that, based on using Spring Training appearances (his argument, not mine) that Michael deserved more playing time. I countered that with the fact that Langerhans had a great spring, and though it didn't get mentioned, also altered his mechanics at the plate, and had a better spring than Michael. So, you have to choose between two guys who didn't do anything with the bat to speak of, last year, who are you going to start the season with? So what, Saunders has fewer at bats that suck in the Major Leagues than Langerhans. That's not a reason to either qualify or disqualify either of them. |
| 44. By: dewey on 04-14-2011 20:15:17 Adam Kennedy hitting fourth REALLY? Did i just see the corner man throw in the towel? |
| 45. By: StandinPat on 04-14-2011 20:32:50 And no we come to the portion of the discussion where Edman spirals into contradictions, backpedaling and counter-intuitive arguements. "Lastly, show me where I quoted any Spring Training stats? Pat mentioned that Saunders deserved playing time based on a short stint of success at the end of Spring Training. I said that, based on using Spring Training appearances (his argument, not mine) that Michael deserved more playing time." Exhibit A) ""He didn't tear it up in Spring Training, as Langerhans did" From your post #33 to which I directly quoted and responded to in #36 "Pat, I'm glad you did the math" Well obviously you are struggling with it. From droning on and on about how it's just one game, 5 is more than 1, to who brought up spring training, 36 is after 33. "Why is Saunders more worthy of playing time, than Langerhans? Because he's younger?" Um....that would be one of the reasons, yes. Why are you struggling with this. Langerhans is now 31 and has no real upside or projection left, while Saunders is 7 years his younger and has more raw ability and upside. "Nowhere have I said, and please do quote where I have, that they should give Saunder's playing time to Langerhans." So Saunder's hasn't earned it, but you aren't saying they should give it to Langerhans either? Then what exactly are you saying? Your argument is so convoluted and contradictory it's not even funny. It amazes me how every other post about Langerhans making the team or getting playing time has you've had nothing but negatives to say about and how he's barely a major leaguer, then at the beginning of this argument he was a solid 4th OF'er and now he's got all the skills and upside that Saunders does. Hell, if we keep this up he might be an All-Star by the time July rolls around. |
| 46. By: StandinPat on 04-14-2011 21:12:02 A couple other gems "The very future of the M's franchise does not depend on Michael Saunders playing every damn game." I'm not even sure where to start with this one. First, no one ever did. Second, no organizations future depends on one individual player. Third, It does however depend on them finding an everyday LF and talented players that can make positive contributions in the future, both of which Saunders potentially fits the bill. "And, when he can "sustain" success. He's accomplished one of those things, but not both, yet." How do you "sustain" anything without being given the opportunity? So before he earns the right to play everyday, he has to prove he can sustain that level of success while playing everyday? Paradox much? "Every good major league player shares one thing in common, they beat out someone else to earn the job." If by "someone" you mean some warm body or AAAA player, then sure, but again that could literally be anyone. Saunders did beat out Gabe Gross after all. IF you mean they came up and took the job away from a quality, established veteran, thats patently untrue. Who did Smoak beat out last year? How about Freddie Freeman this year? What solid player did Longoria, Zimmerman, or Tulowitzki beat out? How about Alcides Escobar? He beat out JJ Hardy right? Or did they just trade Hardy and hand him the job? |
| 47. By: baseballman on 04-14-2011 22:00:02 Pointing out a players performance during ST and quoting stats from ST are two completely different things. |
| 48. By: dawgncarolina on 04-14-2011 22:16:18 "And no we come to the portion of the discussion where Edman spirals into contradictions, backpedaling and counter-intuitive arguements." This. It's kind of like our own version of Godwin's Law. Edman's Law? |
| 49. By: Edman on 04-15-2011 14:19:13 Again, Pat, show me where I quoted any spring training stats. I didn't, did I? As baseballman said, I talked about performance. I never used statistics anywhere in my rebuttal. I also suggest that you try to read more thoroughly. I clearly stated that Saunders' current success should warrant him more playing time. Where I drew the line was that his "performance" should be what continues to earn him more playing time, not because some here think it's unfair not to keep throwing him out there until he succeeds or fails. I, unlike some, don't fall in love with certain prospects. Because Saunders was our best outfield propect a couple years ago, doesn't mean much, considing how weak the farm system was at the time. Let me state it again, I hope Saunders succeeds. I have faith that he can. But, he has to prove that he can. He's no longer at a stage where he's going to be given more rope to figure it out. That window is smaller for him, than others trying to transition to being a major league player. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? You never sustain success simply because you're given more time. You have to show improvement on a continual basis. The changes in his approach at the plate appear to be working. But, the idea that he was ready for live pitching, coming out of Spring Training, probably isn't realistic. I would have to think that Chris Chambliss has been working with him daily, and once he felt Saunders mechanics were solid enough, he went to Wedge and let him know that he's ready for more playing time. Let Wedge do his job until he proves he can't. Because he doesn't play Saunders for a game, is no reason to start complaining. |
| 50. By: slamcactus on 04-15-2011 15:48:19 And again, Edman, I say that Saunders has proven that he's earned a chance to play every day. You never know how well a player will play as an everyday guy until you give him the chance. Contrary to what you've said, most top prospects don't have to prove themselves in weird job-sharing situations where they're only playing 50% of the time. They have to prove they're ready for a callup, but jerking a guy around while he's in the majors is a terrible way to figure out whether he'll ever be able to contribute as a regular. You're just wrong about this. If the team had a better option who also may play a part in their medium to long-term future, then sure, make 'em battle. They don't. They have Ryan Langerhans, who is a stopgap at best. "Why is Saunders more worthy of playing time, than Langerhans? Because he's younger? Don't you think at one time, Ryan had major league potential? You don't think Ryan succeeded at AAA too?" Even setting aside that Langerhans has pretty conclusively proven he's not an everyday player* and that his upside is 4th outfielder. Setting that aside. Even if we thought Langerhans had real upside as an above-average regular, his club control is done at the end of next year, while Saunders still has 4 years left. Langerhans is not part of any conceivable rebuilding plan. *I think it's hilarious I'm advancing this position against you, who's saying Langerhans could have just as much potential. I'm pretty positive I've heard you complain numerous time about the blogosphere having an irrational man-crush on Langerhans. |
| 51. By: Edman on 04-15-2011 16:20:58 slam, first of all, Saunders has never been a top prospect. Being the best prosect in the Seattle Mariner farm system two years ago, doesn't qualify him as a top prospect. Ackley is a top prospect. Pineda is a top prospect. Etc. Saunders wore any indication of that status last year, with some extensive playing time. Yes, top prospects like Ackley and Pineda don't have to compete directly, that's true. Same was true of Griffey, Arod, etc. Saunders has NEVER had that kind of tag put on him. Believe it or not, the M's still have to win games. Yes, they need butts in the seats. So, if Langerhans can provide some pop and Saunders can't outplay him, then yes, for now, he deserves more playing time. Have you noticed the horrid attendance, even for games that Hernandez is pitching? Money keeps the whole thing churning. And, to act like winning isn't more important than worrying about if Saunders gets more at bats, is silly. Believe it or not, the Mariners aren't in business to fulfill your fantasy projections for Saunders, or any other rookie. Your conclusion that the M's should comply with your rebuilding plan, or they are not correct, is a bit self-serving. I'm all for Saunders winning a permanant job in LF, but he's got to earn it. And my comments about Langerhans are still true. I don't have any man-love for him, nor do I for Saunders. It gets down to production. Whoever is producing on a team that is struggling for offense, should get to play. |
| 52. By: dawgncarolina on 04-15-2011 16:26:57 "Whoever management runs out there should get to play." This is what you're really saying Ed, and its that blind defense of management that causes all the contradictions, backtrackings and obfuscations that constantly drive others mad. I've quit arguing with you because I know this is why you say what you say. Others haven't given up on you yet, though. |
| 53. By: slamcactus on 04-15-2011 18:35:54 "slam, first of all, Saunders has never been a top prospect. Being the best prosect in the Seattle Mariner farm system two years ago, doesn't qualify" I never said he was. I don't really care about someone's prospect status. I care if he's got a chance to help the big-league team. What I'm saying doesn't apply uniquely to top prospects. For a rebuilding team, the job is to figure out what your players can do to help you in the future. Michael Saunders is the only guy in the outfield mix right now who has a chance to help the team in the future. He should play every day. "Believe it or not, the M's still have to win games. Yes, they need butts in the seats. So, if Langerhans can provide some pop and Saunders can't outplay him, then yes, for now, he deserves more playing time." There's no evidence whatsoever that Langerhans is better right now than Saunders. Certainly not enough to hurt Saunders' development. There's also ample evidence that Saunders is more valuable than Langerhans right now. "Have you noticed the horrid attendance, even for games that Hernandez is pitching? Money keeps the whole thing churning." And Ryan Langerhans helps that problem...how? On a team like this one watching the young kids is pretty much the only thing that keeps people interested. "Your conclusion that the M's should comply with your rebuilding plan, or they are not correct, is a bit self-serving. I'm all for Saunders winning a permanant job in LF, but he's got to earn it." And again, I repeat: he's earned it. He's the only option the Ms have at the big-league level who can potentially help the Ms in the future. That's not based on his prospect status, it's based on his skills and yes, his service time. Focusing on what people have "earned" is a backward-looking analysis that good teams simply don't do. Teams that buy into veteran entitlement on the theory that "they've earned it" rather than implementing the best practices to develop young talent tend to be pretty bad teams. |
| 54. By: StandinPat on 04-17-2011 14:10:42 "Again, Pat, show me where I quoted any spring training stats. I didn't, did I? As baseballman said, I talked about performance. I never used statistics anywhere in my rebuttal." How about you show me where I ever said you did? You said that I was one the one who brought up their performances in the spring, which is flat out false, so that's what I referenced. Someone else referred to your post as using spring stats, instead of spring performance, really splitting hairs there by the way, not me. Quit acting like I brought up the spring performance, or cited you for quoting "stats." I did neither, if you can't argue your side without fabricating your own version of the truth, then maybe your argument isn't one worth championing. "I also suggest that you try to read more thoroughly" I'm picturing you saying this to yourself in the mirror like a daily affirmation. "I clearly stated that Saunders' current success should warrant him more playing time. Where I drew the line was that his "performance" should be what continues to earn him more playing time, not because some here think it's unfair not to keep throwing him out there until he succeeds or fails" But that isn't at all what you "clearly stated." You clearly stated you didn't think he's done enough to be more deserving of playing time than someone such as Langerhans. Additionally, no one has stated that Saunders should just get a free pass forever and never has to put up any results to stay in the lineup. All anyone said was he current performances had earned him the right to play pretty much every day, and that was the best thing for both his future and the M's. You can argue all day until your blue in the face, but it's a pretty basic and fundamental fact. "slam, first of all, Saunders has never been a top prospect." Do you even try and fact check statements like these before you throw them out? Saunders was rated #65 pre-2009 and #30 pre-2010 by BA. If that doesn't qualify someone as being a "top prospect" I'm not sure what does. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |