| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 09-06-2010 |
I spent the better part of my last two trips to Triple-A Tacoma watching Justin Smoak. Why? Because his showing in the majors this season was atrocious, both in Texas and after the trade to Seattle, and few of his skills were displayed with any consistency.Smoak has above-average pitch recognition, solid plate coverage and can go the other way from both sides of the plate. But he was struggling mightily versus off-speed stuff. It appeared that he was having such problems because he was protecting against the fastball as a left-handed batter.
Why was he protecting against the heater? Yeah, it makes little sense, but when you find yourself behind the fastball, every pitch is difficult to hit. But the positions early in his swing were giving him problems.
To combat this issue, Smoak is working on keeping his hands a little further away from his body to shorten the swing path, allowing him to get to the fastballs better and give him the confidence to make the right adjustment to breaking balls and changeups.
It's not a coincidence that in the past 25 games Smoak is hitting .334/.429/.549 with 21 strikeouts and 21 bases on balls, including a .359/.432/.538 line the past 10 games.
He's 11 for his last 29 as a lefty, too, with two homers and two doubles, all after the fixes to where he starts his hands in each plate appearance.
Smoak has also shown better defensively, with one scout saying "it's probably because he was getting beaten by you guys and someone brought it to his attention. He's fully capable at first; he has OK range, but he's not a third baseman so his value will come with his hands, digs and throws. He has slow feet, but he's not Bengie Molina."
Smoak's approach at the plate has changed a bit, too. He's been hitting more line drives and letting the power come naturally. Most hitting gurus will tell you that you have to be a good hitter first, then a good power hitter, so this is a good sign that Smoak can and has gone back to the basics.
Mike Carp's Power
Mike Carp has an above-average hit tool, and we saw that last year. A lone-drive stroke capable of hitting .280 with acceptable on-base percentages in the big leagues. But the home-run power he's turned on this season came by design, though, as one would expect, it's also came at the expense of some batting average and OBP.
After hitting .271 with a .372 on-base percentage in 110 games for Triple-A Tacoma a year ago, Carp finished the regular season Monday with a .257/.328 line.
His strikeouts are down slightly, but so are his walks.
Here's why:
Carp has been more aggressive early in the count -- again, this is by design -- which is giving him more swings on pitches he can pull, where almost all of his power resides.
The swing is still terrific, but Carp lacks the bat speed to put up such power numbers -- 29 homers, .516 slugging percentage -- if he's working the count more.
In general, his lack of ability versus off-speed stuff and strikes on the outer half, i.e. not enough hits to left or left-center field and very little power to center or left prevent Carp from profiling as a big-league regular.
Greg Halman's discipline
Halman still lacks the necessary discipline and pitch recognition to handle good pitching and the progress he's shown this year in terms of walk rates means almost nothing if he's going to continue to chase pitches out of the strike zone, which he's doing at an alarming rate the past month and a half or so.
His August-September numbers -- 58 whiffs, 6 walks and a .248 on-base percentage -- will likely keep him off the call-up list this month and puts him on the sink-or-swim list of prospects for 2011.
Scouting reminder
Two things thing fans need to remember -- and certainly readers of Prospect Insider -- is that Tom McNamara is the scouting director and therefore responsible for the amateur talent coming into the organization, not Jack Zduriencik.
Sure, Jack could overrule Mac on draft picks and deserves credit for bringing Tom on board in the first place, but he doesn't overrule and McNamara deserves a lot of credit for what's taking place below the big leagues right now, as does Player Development Director Pedro Grifol, and the rest of the player development staff.
The other thing to keep in the back of your mind this offseason is that there are likely going to be a lot of changes in the scouting and player development departments. We could see more manager and coaching changes than ever before, and the coordinators could change, too, though it seems the club likes Carl Willis and Jose Castro quite a bit.
The scouting department could see some serious turnover, and as those occur, since they aren't always made public, we'll talk about those here at PI.
let\'s-talk-justin-smoak
Comments
The following 40 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: double06 on 09-07-2010 00:01:16 Jason, Who did the scout mean by "you guys"? Do you think Smoak can be an average defensive first baseman? |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-07-2010 00:11:12 The scout was talking about the Seattle blogosphere in general. And yes, he can be average, certainly. |
| 3. By: chrisd on 09-07-2010 10:28:55 Boy, what a strong hitting/OBP infield M's will have come 2012 or maybe even 2011 late. Smoak, Ackley, Franklin, and Figgins. If Saunders can start hitting consistently and can pick up right handed DH to go with Branyon then there is a decent lineup. Are still going to need more power with Ichiro and Guittierez in OF.But M's are on their way up. |
| 4. By: maqman on 09-07-2010 11:18:18 Jason, what's the reason for the expected high turnover in the scouting and development staff? |
| 5. By: briang on 09-07-2010 14:31:23 Jason - Can you elaborate on the reasons for the projected turnover in Scouting and Player Development dept's? It sounds like you have some solid reasons for expecting this, I'm curious why. Is tired to the perceived growth/strength of the minor league system... e.g. the folks involved will not be sought after by other clubs, and offered positions they can't turn down, etc...? Thanks! |
| 6. By: eknpdx on 09-07-2010 15:30:41 JAC, I'll be more direct with the questions. Is Bob Engle leaving and/or is he pissed off? |
| 7. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-07-2010 15:34:41 briang, maqman, The scouts in the organization are apparently pretty ticked off, though to my knowledge, Engle is not one of them. There is a sore lack of communication between the front office and the scouts. |
| 8. By: ghill34 on 09-07-2010 23:52:23 Jason, I don't see how there could be much more turnover in the scouting department. Since McNamara took over, he has hired about 10 new scouts (see last 2 years of transactions), which would lead me to believe he has most of his guys on board. |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-08-2010 00:43:16 The club has more than a few area scouts that have been with the org since before Zduriencik came aboard. Only one or two have changed, one being the NW where Joe Ross took over for Jim Fitzgerald. There hasn't been a major turnover within the scouting department, really. And how many scouts do you think are in an entire organization, ghill34, 15? 20? There are many, many more than that. Area guys, regional scouts, the area coordinators, regional crosscheckers, national crosscheckers, associate scouts... and that doesn't even include the "Major League" scouts, special asssignment scouts, and special assistants to the GM, which serve as senior talent evaluators. The Mariners employ well over 100 scouts. Replacing 10, though they haven't done that, actually, is not even scratching the surface. |
| 10. By: dewey on 09-08-2010 01:57:03 Bring back Gillick and his crew please its the only time we have been good.Bang Howie and Chuck and put Pat in charge Towers gm and a few others to come.. |
| 11. By: rjfrik on 09-08-2010 09:37:16 bring Gillick back so we can have an all 35 and over team again. No thanks. Gillick is way past his prime. Was good in Toronto and Baltimore, lucky in Seattle and inherited the Phillies. Thanks but no thanks |
| 12. By: ghill34 on 09-08-2010 10:23:01 Jason- 100 scouts??? You're out of your mind, and way off base on this one. All you need to do is take a quick peak at the Mariners media guide or Baseball America's Directory to see how many scouts they "employ". When I say "employ", I don't mean Associate scouts (bird dogs), I mean actual employees of the Mariners. Bird dogs don't get paid. I have a friend who is an area scout for another organization and explained all this to me and says the average MLB organization employs 30-40 amateur and pro scouts. On the amateur side, there are 18 area scouts listed, 3 regional crosscheckers and 1 national crosschecker. That's 22 amateur scouts, not including the scouting director. Out of those 18 area scouts, I see 6 names that are different from 2009. And including the crosscheckers, I see 11 names that are new since the McNamara/Z era took over. So, that's a 50% turnover in the last 2 years. On the pro scouting side there are 16 names listed. Carmen Fusco is the pro scouting director and does all the hiring and firing of those guys and it looks like there are about 8 new guys since the new regime took over. So, let's recap. 22 amateur scouts and 16 pro scouts. 38 scouts. |
| 13. By: furlong on 09-08-2010 11:11:37 So Pat was just lucky in Toronto, Seattle and Phil. That is rubbish. These clowns running the show now are more than unlucky they are incompetent and the Mariners will be in the toilet until there expunged. |
| 14. By: Adam P. Boyd on 09-08-2010 12:03:29 Despite rjfrik taking that post verbatim from a response from Dave Cameron's chat yesterday -- he is right. Pat Gillick would be a disaster. |
| 15. By: Edman on 09-08-2010 12:37:09 Gillick also was at the helm during the decline of the farm system. I don't blame him entirely. There was a ton of bad luck. But, Pat had one job, come in and get the M's over the top. He did that, but it came at a cost. I enjoyed the M's while Pat was here. But, it was a different club that was closer to contention than the current M's. He was not in Seattle to rebuild, he was in Seattle to win. Apples and oranges. If anyone thinks Pat Gillick is the guy to turn around a rebuilding team, they're greatly mistaken. Considering the financial situation and state of the roster when he took over, few could have done any better than Jack. |
| 16. By: dawgncarolina on 09-08-2010 13:05:23 "Despite rjfrik taking that post verbatim from a response from Dave Cameron's chat yesterday" Glad I'm not the only one who caught that. |
| 17. By: maqman on 09-08-2010 13:21:25 I'm with Edman on Gillick. GMZ is part of the solution, not the problem. Given how the quality of personnel on the farm has increased since GMZ arrived he's getting some good input from somewhere. |
| 18. By: Sarcasticus on 09-08-2010 14:47:39 GMZ? |
| 19. By: Jason A. Churchill on 09-08-2010 15:51:02 ghill, ot sure who told you that, but they are wrong. There are 44 scouts listed under "Scouts" in the Mariners media guide, then 24 listed under "Area scouts." That's already 68 before even considering the special assistants and pro and amateur scouting directors, let alone associate scouts. AS's COUNT, however, despite being volunteers. But if you want to discount them, fine. You're still way off. Sixty-eight is not 30-40, it's not 38, which means the scouting department has not had a 50 percent turnover. That leaves 30+ scouts that were with the club when Jack Zduriencik came aboard, and several of them are unhappy. That is significant. |
| 20. By: Edman on 09-08-2010 16:30:39 GMZ = General Manager Zduriencik At least that's what I've assumed it to mean. |
| 21. By: ghill34 on 09-08-2010 16:47:15 Jason: I don't want to get into a he-said, she-said pi**ing match with you, but I tend to believe a person (my friend) who has been an area scout for 10 years over someone who is not. Why don't you contact McNamara and the boys, as it sounds like you are so close with them, and ask him how many scouts are "employed" by the Mariners? Your original reply to me said, "The Mariners employ well over 100 scouts." So, if and when you contact McN and he tells you they employ over 100 scouts, not including associate scouts (because they don't get a paycheck), I will buy you 2 steak dinners from the restaurant of your choice in Seattle. If it's below 100 and/or closer to my number of 40-45 including directors and special assistants, then I want NOTHING in return. The reason I am pushing this issue so much is you got a few comments right away from your readers on the issue of the Mariners scouts and I want to make sure they are informed properly, as I myself would like to be as a diehard Mariners fan. I don't doubt there are a few scouts from the old regime that are unhappy, it probably happens every time a new regime takes over and things are done a different way. This happens in EVERY business. But to say there is going to be "some serious turnover this offseason" just isn't realistic based on the sheer numbers and the amount of turnover there already has been in the scouting department since McNamara and Fusco took over the amateur and pro scouting departments. |
| 22. By: marinermutt on 09-08-2010 17:11:55 Per the M's media guide that is in front of me, on pages 402 to 403, there are 44 scouts starting with Todd Greene and ending with Yasushi Yamamoto. There are then 24 area scouts listed at the bottom of page 403. This does not include any of the top scouts like Engle, Fusco, and Grifol. There is then listed on page 403 60 associate scouts. So if you don't include them, there are many more than the 38 you have stated. |
| 23. By: slamcactus on 09-08-2010 17:21:24 I've got a friend who's an AS for the Ms, and given how little contact he has with the organization about anything at all, I'm not sure they should "count" as people who can really be disgruntled about organizational matters. They report to other people up the chain, recommend players they see, but they aren't involved at all in organizational politics as far as I understand. They don't even get to come to spring training to hang out at the complex and meet the other folks in the scouting department. |
| 24. By: ghill34 on 09-08-2010 17:42:40 marinermutt: Yes you are right. There are 68 scouts listed in the media guide, not including associates, but that number DOES include international scouts, which I was not including in my 38-45 number. I was not considering international scouts because that is a total different animal that does not have much interaction with the amateur and pro scouting departments, but don't get me wrong they are as equally important. So if we include international scouts, that number is still well below the "well over 100" Jason stated in his comment. |
| 25. By: vandal08 on 09-08-2010 18:05:53 Wow, who really cares. Jason didn't specify what type of scouts he was referring to. Can we just get back to talking about baseball. I assume that people who read this site do so because they are interested in what Jason has to say about the M's and their minor league system. If you don't like what he has to say, disagree, or feel like you're more informed, then start your own site. Does it really matter if it's 68 or 100? |
| 26. By: Lailoken on 09-08-2010 18:24:12 Jason, what do you think the odds are for Carp to be in the org next year? Also, have there been any rumblings anywhere about Estelion Pegeuro, Vicmal de la Cruz, Elvis Sanchez, & DePaula? Since Stanek didn't sign & there was no formal first round pick this year there should be money to get one or a few of these guys. |
| 27. By: Rudolf on 09-08-2010 19:59:20 Jason or Chris, If indeed Colby Rasmus is on the block, do you think the M's are interested? He would most likely be an upgrade over Gutierrez, certainly at the plate. If the Cards are motivated to ship him off, would a package centered around Gutierrez and others not named Hernandez, Smoak, Ackley, Pineda or Franklin be a possibility? I'm sure the Cards would ask for those guys, but could others get it done? |
| 28. By: VikingArthur on 09-08-2010 20:47:15 Yeah... Rasmus would be PERFECT! Give them Gutierrez and any two guys not named Pineda, Franklin, Ackley and Smoak. |
| 29. By: petermag on 09-08-2010 20:53:15 Jason is wrong. There are only 98 scouts with the Mariners. This fact nullifies this post and everything he and Chris have ever written. If only Steve Kelley blogged, then we could really get some facts... |
| 30. By: ghill34 on 09-08-2010 21:17:57 The argument over the number of scouts was to prove a point that not everything he says is necessarily accurate. If he is going to use blanket statements like, "expect serious turnover" and "the scouts in the organization are pretty ticked off", he better have his facts straight and he better speak to more than 1 or 2 scouts that are unhappy. As I mentioned before, there are always a few scouts that are unhappy every year and in every organization, especially when a new regime comes in. Replacing a few unhappy scouts would not be "serious turnover" and will be better in the long run for the Mariners. |
| 31. By: Lailoken on 09-08-2010 22:01:10 Dude, ghill. If you were just going out there "to prove a point that everything he says is necessarily accurate" you failed in this instance. No one that I know fully believes someone is perfect & Jason is human & therefore susceptable to error. To err is human after all. Seriously though, counting international scouts & area scouts which do actually have the title of scouts BTW... there are over a hundred scouts. Case closed. Jason has sources & he's not just trying to sensationalize for fame in the comments section of this site. He has a job with ESPN & works hard there. That he runs this site too & provides info about the hometown nine's prospects is a nicety I, for one, am grateful for. I'd rather the Mariners organization hear that there is some unhappiness & address the issue than have said scouts not have their distaste for the communication structure lead to less thorough work whether by design or accident (ie subconsciously). |
| 32. By: dewey on 09-09-2010 09:34:16 I guess people dont read i said bring Pat back with Towers as his GM.So that would meen Pat taking eith Howie our Chucks job. If no one noticed Towers never had Jacks payrole and they won a few divisions and went to a world series something this team has never done. Just a thought after reading these articles there is trouble in paradise.. |
| 33. By: GormanThomas on 09-09-2010 10:35:00 "If he is going to use blanket statements like, "expect serious turnover" and "the scouts in the organization are pretty ticked off", he better have his facts straight and he better speak to more than 1 or 2 scouts that are unhappy." Followed immediately by: "As I mentioned before, there are always a few scouts that are unhappy every year and in every organization, especially when a new regime comes in." Always? Every year? In every organization? Estimation is NOT acceptable. That must have been some really complex and time consuming research to get all that infallible data that essentially proves and disproves nothing... Well, almost nothing. The thing it does prove I will omit as it violates this site's clear rules regarding personal attacks. Back to reality- not sure how much, why, or even what these scouts are unhappy about, or more importantly, what that means for the team... Great write up on Smoak. Going to the game tomorrow and will be looking closely at his swing. Really good to see that as expected, once he calmed down and let his talent take over he's producing once again. |
| 34. By: Edman on 09-09-2010 12:32:23 Gorman, I think most here understand it's a generalization and that Jason is only repeating a rumor in the wind, and doesn't have specifics, because there aren't any. dewey, I read your post correctly, and there is nothing to convince me that Pat Gillick, even as the team's CEO or president, would be a better idea than what we have. Yes, Towers would be a decent choice, but I'm not sure he'd be any better than Jack, at the best. And exactly how does bringing in Gillick and Towers magically make things better? How about we wait until Jack has some payroll relief, before we judge anything? Jack was burdened with several bad contracts and a horrible team, sans Ichiro and Hernandez, when he took control. The trouble in paradise is likely more a product of the media, than it is internally in the Mariner front office. Losing has a way of doing that. |
| 35. By: dewey on 09-09-2010 14:07:59 Edman you our unreal! So you think Howie and Cuck have even a 1/3 of knowledge of how a baseball team is run compaired to Gillick? If you think that you need to go see a doctor.Towers took a team to the series with a 1/3 of Jacks payrole and also these rumors just dont pop up where there is smoke there is firw my friend.Felix is a bad contract? Ichiro is the owners contract so whoever takes over takes that ask Bavasi.Jack has been here two years and that isnt enough i agree to judge anyone but if you read between the lines and alsolisten to the industry he has made huge mistakes.. |
| 36. By: gwangung on 09-09-2010 14:29:43 Actually, dewey, I don't believe a single word you're claiming as expertise. It's notably thin on reference and they don't pass the sniff test (i.e., they don't make sense on the face of things). And frankly, I'm not sure you have a good handle on what the team's CEO and President do or supposed to do. For example, one of the jobs of the CEO is to develop revenue streams that can help sustain a team in lean years. That has been done, without a doubt. Not sure there are other people in baseball can do quite as well on that. On the field matters are a different story, of course, but you're conflating on the field expertise with personnel whose job covers more than tat. |
| 37. By: Edman on 09-09-2010 14:33:15 OK, and just how much baseball knowledge does a baseball CEO need? You think Boeing's CEO and most presidents could build or design an airplane? It's not their job. It's their job to hire the right people who can. And frankly, I wouldn't want to be a GM working for a former GM like Gillick, especially if he felt he knew how to do my job better than me. ".... and a horrible team, sans Ichiro and Hernandez, when he took control." And just where did I talk about Felix or Ichiro's contract? The second half of that sentence related to the team, not contracts. Listen to the industry? You have an ear to the walls of major league baseball? There's a lot of media crap, but that isn't the industry. There are guys like Dave Cameron, Geoff Baker, etc. who speculate, but that's not necessarily what the industry thinks. I wouldn't at all make a bold statement about "huge" mistakes. There were obviously mistakes made, from the bottom of the front office to the top, this year. And, the same front office looked golden, last year, to the point where Jack's work was probably over glorified. |
| 38. By: slamcactus on 09-09-2010 17:31:52 You're right, Chuck Armstrong doesn't need to know anything about baseball...unless/until he interferes with baseball decisions. There were indications he meddled with the Bavasi regime, although Z seems to have had a pretty free hand. Nobody's really suggesting the FO is in trouble for this season's record. The rumblings tend to be centered around the fact that the team may or may not have acquired an alleged rapist without doing a proper due diligence into his background ahead of time. It's very likely that we will never really know who knew what and who should have known more than they did with the entire situation surrounding Lueke, but it's almost certainly a big deal within the front office at the moment. One that could definitely put a few jobs on the line. |
| 39. By: maqman on 09-10-2010 13:21:17 Again, what Edman said. Thanks Edman you save me a lot of commentary time. |
| 40. By: Lailoken on 09-11-2010 13:31:22 Smoak & Ackley are sure swinging hot bats in the postseason too. |
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 |