| By Rick Randall |  | By 12-15-2010 |
Check out Chris Crawford's weekly glance at the additions and subtractions in the American League West this winter.
A funny thing happened this week while the Seattle Mariners were on their way to American League West obscurity. No, the deft acquisitions of Miguel Olivo, Jack Cust and Brendan Ryan didn't vault the M's into the rarified Pacific Northwest air of "perennial contender." No, there isn't a mastermind trade deal in the works for Seattle to land that 30-homer bat –- at least of which we know.
As we found out Monday night, the hometown nine weren't the "mystery team" in the Cliff Lee chase.
So what happened? How are the Mariners markedly better off now than they were just over a week ago? The pack sunk down to their level, that's how.
This movement in the M's direction started with Carl Crawford signing his surprise mega-deal in Boston -- not in Anaheim, as most prognosticators had him pegged to do. The ripple effect from that non-signing could see both Adrian Beltre and Rafael Soriano sign elsewhere, as there are more rumblings that Arte Moreno and Scott Boras – Beltre's rep -- aren't on one another's Christmas lists.
So how does that make the M's situation better?
First off, the big attraction for the Angels was supposed to be fueled by the signing of Crawford. The thought was that a long-term deal with the talented 29-year old -- who has recently been among the most valuable position players in MLB judged by WAR -- would make the Halos a more attractive club for other free agents, as they would see L.A as a young leader in a fairly weak division. But the Angels' reported offer of six years and $108 million wasn't even in the ballpark, as it turns out.
So with Crawford not in town, Boras and the rest of his players may well be more inclined to simply get the most lucrative deal, regardless of the landing spot (see: Werth, Jayson). And that tactic doesn't play well with Moreno, who may still harbor some ill will towards Boras from the Mark Teixeira situation a few years back. So far, the Angels have added just two pieces to their roster -- left handed relievers (Scott Downs and Hisanori Takahashi). Not quite the same haul most expected.
If Beltre doesn't land in Anaheim and the Angels come up more or less empty the rest of the way, we can likely expect that Jered Weaver and Kendry Morales -- both Boras clients, by the way -- will be leaving the City of Angels following their arbitration years, too. Bobby Abreu and Torii Hunter aren't getting any younger, and while the Angels probably have the No. 1 prospect in all of baseball in OF Mike Trout, the system takes a quick and deep dive after that, not to mention that Trout isn't exactly big-league ready just yet.
The Mariners' staying young and short-term with their offseason signings while the Angels continue to age points towards growing chances that the two organizations' fortunes flip-flopping in the not-too-distant future.
As for the Texas Rangers, the Lee stunner is a huge setback for them, but what it does to their organization is the bigger story. It is likely that they now go after another starter -- that could be Zack Grienke, or it could be someone from the next tier, like Matt Garza or Francisco Carmona -- and they will have to part with some top talent to get any of those guys.
Jurickson Profar, Engel Beltre, Martin Perez, Tanner Scheppers, etc. -- those are the types of names that the Rangers will have to cough up if they want to better their rotation this winter. If the Rangers weaken their uber-talented system to build up the big-league staff and compensate for Lee's loss, that bodes well for the Mariners' future, as it shortens the potential stranglehold the rival Rangers could have on the division.
And while Oakland is currently abreast with some funds, young and has a talented system from which to pull prospects, the fact of the matter is that they are a pitching-heavy organization that is trying to supplement their pitching-heavy 25-man roster without busting the budget. They have a few bats in the organization, but they simply don't have the pieces to put up the offense in that massive, and empty, ballpark. David DeJesus fits their club well, but he isn’t a middle of the order bat. Hideki Matsui isn’t going to be the answer to the offense, either, despite projecting to help some.
Meanwhile, the M's have several young bats on the way up in the system -- most notably, of course, Justin Smoak, Dustin Ackley and Nick Franklin. The difference those three represent over the players that have manned their position for the M's over the past few seasons alone could be more than enough in terms of upgrades to see the M's take a dramatic step forward in many offensive statistics and overall team production.
To put it another way, since the start of 2008, first base, second base and shortstop have combined to give the club right around 7.9 Wins Above Replacement ... total ... over a span of three years.
By 2013, 7.9 WAR could be a down year for the above trio as Ackley and Smoak should be well-adjusted to the big leagues by that time and Franklin will certainly be seeing MLB pitching for what could be a second go-round. And remember, Derek Jeter’s terrible 2010 season was worth 2.5 WAR at SS, so remember where the bar is set there.
Seattle has been dead last in the major leagues in batting average (.253), walk rate (7.1), on-base percentage (.310), slugging (.377) and wOBA (.303) over the past three seasons. They need offense from these kids, and even if it's not star level production, it still projects to serve as a significant shot in the arm.
The advanced approaches being shown by all three, sans Smoak's time in the big leagues after the trade, and a number of other talents in the system, assures that those team numbers will all climb once this fresh batch of kids become regulars, even considering the rate at which good prospects fail.
To give you just a taste of that, preliminary projections for Smoak alone in 2011 are for right around a .350 wOBA and between 2.0 and 2.5 WAR.
But the organization has pitching coming, too. When you add in arms such as Michael Pineda and Mauricio Roble to Johermyn Chavez, possibly Kyle Seager and definitely a few of the bullpen arms, namely Dan Cortes, Josh Lueke and Tom Wilhelmsen, it is easy to see that the depth of the Mariners organization is improving, and maintains the promise of upside at the same time. That depth and the quality of that depth is where the M's can make up the gap with the rest of the AL West over the next two seasons.
Contrary to what some experts have recently opined, the depth of the Mariners system isn't a large problem, it's actually moving toward an area of strength -- and could prove to be such a strength for a long time.
The 2011 draft will help out in that area, too. Worst case scenario, the M's will get one of the top college arms, such as UCLA's Gerritt Cole, TCU's Matt Purke or UCONN's Matt Barnes, any of whom could reach the majors by 2013. Best case, they will get their third basemen in Rice star Anthony Rendon.
But truthfully, we could see the M's move toward making some noise in the AL West before 2013. If we take a look at the table below, which pits the clubs WAR output from 2010 and compares it to some conservative -- emphasis on conservative, too -- and preliminary projections for 2011, you can already see that the club could sneak up the runs scored ranks a bit.
That increase from 4.7 to 16.5 gets the M's more or less into the area of the 2010 Mets, who ranked 21st in baseball in offensive WAR last season. Those Mets scored 653 runs, or 146 more than Seattle did a year ago.
For reference, the White Sox posted a WAR of 18.1 last season, and scored 82 more runs than the Mets. So how much improvement do you think Seattle could make from their 101-loss season by adding somewhere between 140 and 220 runs on offense? A lot. And remember, those estimates above aren't best case scenario – those are conservative to the point where we took projections and cut those down, sometimes significantly, including that of Gutierrez, Ichiro and Figgins, all considered established major league players.
Still think the Olivo and Cust signings were a waste? Furthering my point from above, catcher have given the M's 2.2 WAR over the last three seasons combined, and they have been given -1.2 from the DH spot. That's 1.2 below zero. And if Michael Saunders starts to figure things out, well, left field has given them 3.4 over the three seasons with the league average being more than two wins per season.
The 2010 Seattle Mariners were historically bad with the bat, as most of the players that saw significant playing time performed drastically below their career norms. Chone Figgins and Franklin Gutierrez are prime bounce back candidates, and Olivo, Justin Smoak and Cust should easily outperform their 2010 counterparts. Add in the hopeful progression of some young players, Ichiro's typical performance and the improved defense from second, third, and at catcher, these M’s have the makings of a much better team at the plate -- and in the field -- in 2011.
Another thing playing in the M’s favor is that the supposed calling card of the 2010 Mariners -- the defense -- is now set up to be even better this season. Brendan Ryan replaces Jose Lopez, Chone Figgins moves back to his preferred position, Miguel Olivo can hopefully end the history of the dropsies ... this team could be quite special in the field with few, if any, true weaknesses with the glove.
Think about this -- twenty percent of the players that produced 4+ WAR in 2010 relied more on their glove than their bat to get there. And special in the field can carry over into something at the plate.
Make no mistake; when building a major-league club with a bunch of young contributors, having some success to build on is key. If the M’s young core can see some success in '11, the likelihood of them capitalizing on the changing landscape of the AL West in 2012 and 2013 is multiplied, maybe tenfold. And "changing the culture," which GM Jack Zduriencik likes to speak, helps in luring in free agents, too.
Now, maybe Beltre does ultimately end up in Anaheim, or even in Oakland, or maybe even Texas now. But if not, and the pack keeps coming back to the M's level as the West struggles to land the big FA, then the M's can shorten the gap between themselves and the rest of the AL West sooner rather than later, and without a ton of further tinkering, and this franchise can climb out of the doldrums and once again be important players in the American League.
I don't think anyone is suggesting the M's can contend next season, but he future for the Mariners is looking brighter, and fun times may not be all that far away.
m\'s-bright-future-gets-closer
Comments
The following 72 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: slamcactus on 12-15-2010 17:27:41 Nice analysis, but one thing you need to take account of in that analysis is that in virtually every season, one of the projected regulars suffers either a performance meltdown or an injury that causes them to lose time to an inferior option. Last year, that meant just shy of 400 PAs for Josh Wilson, the definition of replacement level talent. We've improved our MI depth with Ryan and Rodriguez, but we have a serious catcher depth issue if Olivo gets hurt and Moore remains ineffective. There's nobody behind them who's even replacement level. There's also a major lack of depth in the outfield. Ryan Langerhans can hold it down for a little bit, but I'm not super comfortable with he and Milton Bradley as the only options if any of our OFs go down. The team also pretty much has no option whatsoever (except Langerhans, which...yeah) in the event of a Gutierrez injury. This was Zduriencik's biggest blind spot last year. He couldn't have been expected to predict career worst years from Figgins, Lopez, Bradley, Wilson, and Kotchman, but he should have known that opening the year with Matt Tuiasosopo as your backup SS when your starter's ridiculously injury-prone was a terrible idea. He should have known that carrying two DH-only guys instead of looking to maximize flexibility would lead to a bad result. My favorite thing about the way the Rays is constructed isn't their embarrassment of riches in young talent, it's that every year they seem to have a very, very good backup at every single position. Now I'm aware that some positions have more upside than your projections give them credit for. But you already mentioned that, so I'm intentionally focusing on the pessimistic side of things, which I think is under-represented here. I think some of these issues may be fixed by the time the off-season's done, but right now I'm not too fond of the team's contingency plans at any position other than 2B/SS, and history says at least 1-2 players will be called on to get a few hundred PAs at those other 7 positions even on a relatively healthy team. Of course, that's just for 2011. A lot can and will change before 2012, and I don't think the team's in an awful place looking beyond this year. I don't think they're in an awful place this year, either, but I did want to call attention to some of its flaws. |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 17:36:17 slam, That is why instead of using 2011 WAR projections across the board, we went very conservative on them. None of the above WAR projections are what fangraphs or Bill James have for any of the players. We realized that the variables in any/all given season or seasons makes it dangerous to simply use the raw WAR projections. The WAR projections are significantly higher than 16.5 for the M's 2011 projected lineup. |
| 3. By: Rick Randall on 12-15-2010 17:38:01 An excellent point, slamcactus. Someone ALWAYS gets hurt. But let's just say that our injury is to, oh, I don't know, Jack "15-day DL" Wilson. If the M's are playing well at that point in time and you-know-who is playing well in Tacoma, how do you think they fill Wilson's spot? It should go without saying that a 2B/SS combo of Ackley/Ryan would outperform a 2B/SS combo of Ryan/Wilson. Aside from Ichiro and Figgins -- who have each proven to be incredibly durable -- the biggest possible place the M's could get hurt would be from Smoak or Olivo going down. Those could both be deal breakers. Saunders can fill in for up to a month for Gutierrez without much noticeable falloff...especially with Nix in the mix. Really the main point of this article was to show -- with numbers to back it up -- just how much of a team-wide abberation 2010 was. |
| 4. By: Rick Randall on 12-15-2010 17:40:31 **Nix POSSIBLY in the mix** |
| 5. By: Kevin on 12-15-2010 17:47:55 Nice article Rick! And welcome to the Prospect Insider community! I for one really appreciate all you, Chris and Jason do and find your analysis to usually be spot on. It's shocking to see just how bad the position players were this past year. I tend to call bullcrap when people say "nowhere to go but up" due to the fact that if you flip a coin and it's heads, doesn't mean it's going to be tails the next time. This might just be one of those rare moments when you can pretty safely say "nowhere to go but up." Just to clarify, on your chart, is the 0.7 WAR for 2b last year really all Figgins could muster? I know he underperformed with the bat, but he turned it up a bit at the end of the year, and he stole a ton of bases. Are SB's factored into the WAR? |
| 6. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 17:53:20 Kevin, According to fangraphs.com, Figgins' WAR last season was indeed 0.6. |
| 7. By: littlelinny6 on 12-15-2010 17:54:18 Rick, great work and it's exciting to see what the possible future can hold for the M's. A DP combo of Ryan and Wilson early on seems top notch defensively, I'll just have to close my eyes when they actually come up to the dish :) One question I had that Drayer put in her blog post a few days ago that there were murmurs in the organization that Saunders is going to have to have a good spring to just make the team, let alone start in LF--any validity to this you think? |
| 8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 18:04:01 linny, I can't speak for Rick, but unless they add another legit bat that can play left, Saunders will make the team. But you really can't tell him that if you are Jack or Wedge. He has to feel challenged with a sense of urgency. I don't believe for one second that the M's would leave Saunders in AAA to start the year, only to be forced to use Bradley regularly in left. No chance. |
| 9. By: short on 12-15-2010 18:05:48 The Mariners also should be in on some free agents during the 2011 offseason. A lot of money is coming off the books. This is why I reacted with rage against those on Larry Stone's blog saying we should trade Hernendez so he can "play for a winner." That thinking betrays an utter lack of understanding of how the Mariners' outlook should be improving in the not-too-distant future. |
| 10. By: Rick Randall on 12-15-2010 18:18:33 I agree 100% with Jason's take on the Saunders thing: Coachspeak. Jack also questioned the work ethic and effort of a few young guys on both 710 and 950 the other day. Sounds like a company line to try and motivate. |
| 11. By: littlelinny6 on 12-15-2010 18:20:56 Yeah, that makes sense about Saunders. I'm just really curious how the whole Milton Bradley thing will play out and this will obviously affect Saunders as well. From a team chemistry standpoint they should just cut him loose but from a logical standpoint, no one on the roster has a higher upside with the stick for 2011 than Milton Bradley. Led AL in OPS in 2008 and even in 2009 had a .378 OBP and was an above average hitter. I realize with Bradley nothing is as simple as physcial skills given the myriad of off-field problems he has. However, I'm just trying to figure out from a results perspective how someone can fall off a cliff so quickly. Bat speed?? Injury?? With so much money tied up in him for 2011 I'd think the M's got to give him at least a decent change for the first month because that is lots of money to eat. But then the question comes do you play him in place of Saunders so the M's seems to be in a no win situation. |
| 12. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 18:24:44 Bradley's bat speed wasn't down significantly in 2010 versus 2009 or 2008. |
| 13. By: STEVEV on 12-15-2010 18:41:59 Jason, Have you heard on James Paxton signing sometime? |
| 14. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 18:44:03 Steve V, No. It's one of those situations where the two sides check in now and again, but until he signs -- or doesn't sign by the deadline, which is one week prior to the 2011 draft -- there won't be any news. I'd be surprised if he didn't sign, however. |
| 15. By: DRWheelock on 12-15-2010 18:57:28 Jason - There was news this past weekend that BoSox were DEEP into a Beltran trade prior to the Crawford signing, and now that is dead. I also have been hearing for a year the Mets paying half his remaining salary. With 1 yr left thats only $9M. I love the thought of Beltran in LF on his contract year. Even in his down years his WAR was pretty solid, and it's evident that him and the Mets Brass don't see eye to eye. You think there would be any chance of landing Beltran to play left for us, and going next to Cust in the lineup? We are still in the mid-$70s for salary at this point ("if" we consider Aardsma will be traded). One more thing...A lot of talk and rumors today on interest in Carmona around MLB. Do you know if Seattle is in on that? I would LOVE to nab Carmona and Wandy Rodriguez! But the prospects they may demand might not be worth it, based upon your article above. Garry |
| 16. By: baseballfan on 12-15-2010 19:06:19 I wouldn't be surprised to see Jose Bautista in an Angels uniform by spring training. |
| 17. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 19:13:47 I don't see any chance of Beltran. There are concerns that he won't stay healthy, if he's even healthy to start the year to begin with. And adding $9 million is not in the cards for a short-term answer like that. |
| 18. By: slamcactus on 12-15-2010 19:19:01 " That is why instead of using 2011 WAR projections across the board, we went very conservative on them. None of the above WAR projections are what fangraphs or Bill James have for any of the players." Well, to be fair, fangraphs are fan-driven, and Bill James projections almost always represent something like the 75th-percentile projection. He's bullish on everyone. But yes, that's why I didn't fault any of the single WAR projections. As a group, it's entirely possible that the team will hit that total number, and I acknowledged that there's upside beyond them. But simply listing the potential regulars and their projected WAR is leaving a huge part out of the equation. In any given year a team will give over a thousand plate appearances to guys who were not initially pegged as opening-day regulars. The Mariners' options at many of those positions may well be below replacement level. Like I said, some of that will probably change, but right now I'm not comfortable with where the team's at. "But let's just say that our injury is to, oh, I don't know, Jack "15-day DL" Wilson. If the M's are playing well at that point in time and you-know-who is playing well in Tacoma, how do you think they fill Wilson's spot?" I already acknowledged that they're set pretty well at 2B/SS. Between Ryan's ability to slide over, Ackley, and Luis Rodriguez if Ackley's not ready, their backup options are better than they were last year. It's every other position that bothers me. "Aside from Ichiro and Figgins -- who have each proven to be incredibly durable -- the biggest possible place the M's could get hurt would be from Smoak or Olivo going down. Those could both be deal breakers. A lot of guys are durable until they aren't. Those two individuals have good track records, you're right, but we're concerned with any injury, not injury to specific players. "Saunders can fill in for up to a month for Gutierrez without much noticeable falloff...especially with Nix in the mix." That presumes Saunders performs well, which isn't a given. I like him, but 1.3 WAR would be a huge step up for him. And Saunders has his own durability concerns. He was unavailable for lengthy stretches last year with shoulder issues, and missed parts of 2008 and 2009 as well. All I'm saying is that with a team WAR calculation you need to somehow account for all the PAs given to non-opening day regulars. I can almost guarantee this team will have at least 1,000 of those. In some cases, that helps. Ackley's not listed here, and he should be good when he comes up. But neither is Tui, who right now is the most likely option to start the year at backup 1B/3B. Or Bradley, who could repeat last year's disaster, or find some of his lost effectiveness. Don't get me wrong. I agree with the basic premise of the article. The 2011 offense should be way, way better than the 2010 offense was. I've made that exact same point in other threads. I just wanted to call attention to the unaccounted-for PAs. |
| 19. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 19:26:02 Slam, You should compare the projections we used to what James and FG had... we undercut them pretty aggressively. The above WAR numbers are very reasonable, to say the least. "All I'm saying is that with a team WAR calculation you need to somehow account for all the PAs given to non-opening day regulars." The 2011 projections we started with -- prior to cutting into them -- are not for 162 games of play. They never are. And such a study is never, ever going to be perfect because there is no way to quantify how much time a Wilson or Saunders or Olivo or anyone, really, might miss due to injury. So it's pretty darned nit picky to have such a huge issue with the data used to make the point Rick was trying to make. |
| 20. By: 11records on 12-15-2010 19:31:05 Let me preface by saying that I think Felix is amazing and I don't want to see the M's trade him. BUT - if the Yankees positively need to get a frontline starter, could the M's possibly engineer a deal with the Yankees and the Royals in which Seattle gives up Felix, and dumps Figgins and Bradley's contracts to get Greinke and either Cano or Montero + another prospect? That would provide the M's with a top 5 starter in the AL, and a top position player (or 2 top 25 prospects) and $36M+ in savings over the next 3 years that they could use to try to sign Adrian Beltre. Royals would get pieces from the Yankees, such as Phil Hughes or Joba plus a premium prospect and also Milton Bradley (with the Yankees paying his salary). The Yankees would get Felix and Figgins. Maybe one or two other prospects move around to make it all make sense?? Am I utterly high? |
| 21. By: slamcactus on 12-15-2010 19:50:36 "And such a study is never, ever going to be perfect because there is no way to quantify how much time a Wilson or Saunders or Olivo or anyone, really, might miss due to injury." It doesn't need to be perfect. Even just "factor in anywhere from -1 to 1 WAR for the other 1000-odd PA's" would be fine. Or hell, just "understand that while there's upside, there's downside too" would be totally fine. It provides some sort of basis for comparison with other teams that have better depth. For a comparison, look at what Dave did over at FG with his "How good are the Phillies" post. He took the bench and bullpen into account. Not in a strict way that predicted playing time for individual players, but in a general, qualitative way. "The 2011 projections we started with -- prior to cutting into them -- are not for 162 games of play. They never are." The WAR projection is typically over 600 plate appearances. That's how WAR's calculated, and you need to think of WAR in those terms to give meaning to the stat. "So it's pretty darned nit picky to have such a huge issue with the data used to make the point Rick was trying to make." It's not a huge issue, it's just one that makes the WAR calculations for regulars misleading. The projections collectively fail to take into account downside. This is obviously nowhere near on that level, but last year over at SSI SABRMatt did a series that pretty much did exactly this and had the Ms pegged at something like 94 wins. I didn't mean to suggest that Rick's analysis was bad. Quite the contrary, I believe I started off with "nice analysis," and said in my follow-up that I'm on board with the general conclusion. I just wanted to point out one additional consideration. |
| 22. By: slamcactus on 12-15-2010 19:51:50 "You should compare the projections we used to what James and FG had... we undercut them pretty aggressively." I know. I don't disagree with any of these numbers as a fair median projection. It's just that with a 25-man roster that fluctuates wildly over a 162-game season, the whole isn't equal to the sum of its parts. |
| 23. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-15-2010 20:47:07 Then start a blog and correct us, sir. Just stop being so damned argumentative over what adds up to be minimal discrepancies. |
| 24. By: Lailoken on 12-15-2010 21:07:40 slam, Earlier you said the team doesn't have anyone who can play at replacement level if Olivo is injured & Moore fails to improve. GMZ just signed Chris Giminez to a minor-league contract & he fits the bill. He has a .762 OPS in AAA & a .913 OPS in AA. The tweaking isn't over of course & the moves between now & the end of the season could provide some serious improvements. The Crain deal today shows just how crazy the relief help market is & that was followed by substantial offers to Kerry Wood & Dotel. Flipping Aardsma could bring a substantial return. |
| 25. By: jazon_24 on 12-15-2010 21:23:29 I thought that WAR projection systems already factor injury risks into account by projecting performance based on historical comparables. Thus, a conservative adjustment to a WAR projection should already take injury risks into account. |
| 26. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 12-15-2010 22:55:12 Wins above replacement are wins above replacement. The only time component involved is the adjustment for replacement level which rises according to playing time so your contention that WAR is based on 600 plate appearances is patently false slamcactus. Great work guys. I have been saying pretty much this same thing to a lot of Mariners 'fans' I know. Of course the replies I hear are starting to sound a lot like the replies I got between 77 and 95. "Who cares about the Mariners" "They suck I don't want to hear about what they're doing" "Why do you still care" "I'm a (insert team name) fan" I guess when the Mariners are a surprise team in 2011 and contend in 2012 I'll have to extend a hand to help all these 'fans' up onto the bandwagon, but lord will it be annoying. I couldn't stand all the phony fairweathers in 1995 and I think I'll have even less patience for them this time around. |
| 27. By: Madison Mariner on 12-16-2010 02:00:11 "The Crain deal today shows just how crazy the relief help market is & that was followed by substantial offers to Kerry Wood & Dotel. Flipping Aardsma could bring a substantial return." Yeah, and the Crain deal was really set up by the Dodgers grabbing Matt Guerrier first, who I'm guessing was coveted by a few teams. In fact, I just saw a rumor on another site about 10 minutes ago that said the M's have started to talk to other teams about David Aardsma, so Jack Z. hasn't been sleeping. He knows what's happening in the free agent market and wants to get both feet into the pool sooner rather than later. ;) So, what kind of package could we expect in return for Aardsma. One pretty good prospect? Two above average prospects? The return of Fabian Williamson?(the guy we traded to get him) Just kiding on that last part. ;) Any guesses/info is appreciated. :) |
| 28. By: Bionic_ben23 on 12-16-2010 03:30:03 i'm be looking for a big year outta Saunders. JAC, if Saunders shows he can rake at the big league level, does that make Guti tradeable ? |
| 29. By: Bionic_ben23 on 12-16-2010 03:55:34 i'm be looking for a big year outta Saunders. JAC, if Saunders shows he can rake at the big league level, does that make Guti tradeable ? |
| 30. By: Edman on 12-16-2010 11:39:41 I'm sure Jack would listen to offers, but I doubt he'd be shopping him. That's not Jack's style. I don't see teams giving up a top prospect for him. Money is easier to lose, especially for the Red Sox, than prospects. Why trade for Aardsma, when you could still sign one of many equivalent relievers (specifically Gregg)? There are so many free agent relievers right now that eventually they'll be forced to settle for reasonable contracts, just to be able to find work. You give up top prospects for something that's hard to get. Other teams will point that out to Jack, in an effort to drive down the cost he'd be willing to spend for Aardsma. I'm still betting that David start out spring training with Seattle. When news is slow, baseball writers repeat even the far-fetched rumors. |
| 31. By: shortstop9 on 12-16-2010 11:45:20 Looks like the A's are close to getting Josh Willingham for a couple minor league players.Man I wish we would jump in on that.He would fit perfect in LF. |
| 32. By: Edman on 12-16-2010 12:02:58 shortstop, it's just a rumor so far. And from the post on MLB Rumors, they don't mention that the deal would be for prospect, nor what kind or prospects. If it was Pineda and Franklin, would you still want Seattle in the talks. I'm sure Jack is talking to the Nats, just like everyone else who has a need. From that same artical, it states that the Nats wanted way too much in return for Josh, and it's not likely they're going to settle for a lot less than their previous expectations. I would love to have Josh in LF, but I'm not sure at what cost. If they want a King's randsome for him, no thanks. |
| 33. By: Turtle on 12-16-2010 12:07:18 Rick,Jason or Chris, What do you see the M's getting back if they decide to trade Aardsma? |
| 34. By: shortstop9 on 12-16-2010 13:12:12 Doesn't look like a rumor any longer-reports the deal is done with Oakland.Man they have improved!Outfield of Willingham,DeJesus,Sweeney etc.We sure are getting burried at the bottom of the AL West.I guess we didn't match up with them (Nats)either. |
| 35. By: Edman on 12-16-2010 13:12:23 Looks like Willingham is off to the A's. It will be interesting to see who they gave up to get him. The Nats had a pretty hefty price tag going into the winter meetings. |
| 36. By: FWBrodie on 12-16-2010 16:18:48 Crawford had Oakland adding 4.5 WAR so far this offseason. Make that 7 WAR now (losing 3.5, 3.5 net). I'd say that was a pretty significant move by the A's today. |
| 37. By: Kryten on 12-16-2010 17:15:07 Very minor correction on the chart... Jack Wilson goes from -0.3 to +0.5, which = +0.8, not +0.2 Totals are all correct though. |
| 38. By: Mackie on 12-16-2010 17:20:16 For Willingham, the A's sent Washington a RH reliever Henry Rodriguez and outfielder Corey Brown. Which two Mariner players do those compare with? |
| 39. By: shortstop9 on 12-16-2010 17:36:43 Seems like we could have made them a better offer than that. |
| 40. By: short on 12-16-2010 17:40:10 38: From what I can gather I'd say the best equivalents in the A's-Nats deal would be Dan Cortes and Greg Halman. The OF from the A's may be less of a risk to completely flame out since he isn't strikeout artist Halman is...but he has less upside on the power side. |
| 41. By: Rick Randall on 12-16-2010 19:31:25 Cortes has better secondary stuff than Rodriguez, but they are both fireballers that touch triple digits and lack good command. Halman is definitely a bigger risk/upside guy than Brown. But that package is about right with what we have to work with as far as a comp package. |
| 42. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 12-16-2010 19:32:30 So maybe more like Saunders and Fields from the Mariners. |
| 43. By: Rick Randall on 12-16-2010 20:13:24 Fields is what I was thinking, but Rodriguez is somewhere in between he and Cortes. Doesn't have the breaking stuff of either. I think Saunders has more upside than Brown, too. |
| 44. By: candasharp on 12-16-2010 22:38:03 Not sure I get the obsession with Josh Willingham. Poor fit for our park (offensively or defensively), injury issues, not overly young. Most of all, we know how well the last Willingham who came to Seattle worked out ... |
| 45. By: safecochatter on 12-17-2010 02:42:19 with all the aardsma rockies talk,anyone got any idea what the m's might target. the rockies #1 goal is said to be another bat.so giving up a a bat on their starting lineup probably not gonna happen. would catching prospect Michael McKenry be shooting to high? |
| 46. By: Edman on 12-17-2010 11:40:51 I don't think Jack will trade Aardsma for anything other than a trade weighted toward Seattle. There's no real modivation at this point. Trading him without getting the right player in return is futile. It's more about building a team, then getting value from a part you'd have to replace. The bullpen has too many young and unproven kids going into next season. That would be a big weight on League's back, and he didn't fare well in pressure situations last year. I still stand by my belief that he's start Spring Training with the M's. I'm sure the Rockies have an interest, but that doesn't mean Jack does. |
| 47. By: Edman on 12-17-2010 11:51:43 Disregard the typos. I should never type before I've had my morning coffee. |
| 48. By: bunvt on 12-17-2010 11:52:14 I'm with Ed- think Jack's JJ Putz deal part II in order to trade Aardsma. Unless behind the scenes there's pressure to cut money, which I don't think is the case at the moment. |
| 49. By: aerichner on 12-17-2010 13:13:00 I understand he wont make a deal JUST to make a deal considering he can deal him at the deadline (unless he starts off rough like in 2010, that'd suck) but Im sure hes looking because RP is replaceable. If you can sign someone for LESS than what DA will make then you definitely deal him if you can get something you like right now (you=JACK). He knows what he needs to do. I love that bald f--k-r. :) |
| 50. By: shortstop9 on 12-17-2010 14:03:50 Magglio signed maybe they should make run at Raburn. |
| 51. By: safecochatter on 12-17-2010 14:26:38 I'm not really sure what the purpose of this graph is. but for those that are in to trades it might be interesting. never saw anything like this.. http://cjspurlock.squarespace.com/btbs |
| 52. By: Edman on 12-17-2010 14:58:04 #49, your comment is the biggest myth created by rosterbaters and spread thoughout the internet. Relief pitching, in general, is replaceable. That being guys to cover the middle innings. The idea that anyone can be a late inning reliever or closer is a myth. Do you really think baseball GMs would pay such a high price for closers, if that was true? If anyone could do it, then it would be the lowest paying job in baseball. Where this myth gets its legs is the success stories of converting a mediocre starter into a servicable bullpen arm. There are more visible successes, because if you're a mediocre starter, and still a mediocre reliever, who cares? You weren't expected to succeed. Where bullpens fail is not understanding the links. When you lose a roll player, you have to have people to move into their spots. Right now, there is some security in having Aardsma-League to cover innings 8-9. Lose Aardsma, and who covers the eighth inning? Could you make Pauly into that guy? Probably not. One of the young arms? Maybe, but wouldn't it be better for them to get experience in less important innings before you move them up? Some kids have the mentality for that, most don't. It's frustrating when people make general assumptions about roster construction, and treat it with an antiseptic, as if all things are static and results are easily achieved with proper application. But it's not quite that easy. I think fantasy league baseball has made it seem easy, in that all you have to do is apply numbers to get a result. Numbers are the result, the player is the application. |
| 53. By: Kryten on 12-17-2010 15:20:50 That Spurlock graph is pretty cool. Not sure how accurate though. Says we haven't traded with Texas since 2008. The Lee trade seems more recent to me. |
| 54. By: sexymarinersfan on 12-17-2010 15:52:42 When David Aardsma was rumored to be wanted by Arizona, someone asked the same question about the DA and what we might be able to receive for him. I believe it was Jason who said that we might be able to get a 4th OF and maybe some back up help amongst the INF. I think that's pretty reasonable. However, we've acquired INF back up since that discussion, and some possible candidates for the 4th OF slot. I wouldn't be surprised if Jack went after a younger high talented reliever, in which he could be brought along as the next tier of prospects. We'd be able to control them for a lot more years and wouldn't have to pay such a high contract. I'm just guessing of course. Merely my opinion. |
| 55. By: rjfrik on 12-17-2010 16:35:04 Safeco wouldn't you rather have Wilin Rosario or even Jordan Pocheco as the Rockies catching prospect headed back our way? Both these players seem to be better players. If we could get Rosario, you might have to pull the trigger on him alone. 21 years old and with that kind of power bat. Could be nice 5 hole hitter in the bigs. |
| 56. By: sexymarinersfan on 12-17-2010 16:50:39 Lol, I trust that whoever Z trades for with Aardsma, which in fact if he does, it will be the right move, catching prospect or not. |
| 57. By: safecochatter on 12-17-2010 17:36:11 55 - anyone of those would work. i've read good things about McKenry's ability to take over from behind the plate. team captain type abilities if you will. but shopping from each others excess areas is always a fruitful way to work a trade. |
| 58. By: eastcoastmariner on 12-17-2010 19:45:53 Jason, Any thoughts on a guy like Esmil Rogers of the Rockies? Would he be attainable in a trade for Aardsma? Eric Young Jr. would also seem to be an upgrade over Josh Wilson or Tui in a utility role. Two B-level major league ready prospects/players like Rogers and Young Jr. would seem like a fair swap for Aardsma |
| 59. By: aerichner on 12-18-2010 10:48:39 @52, Edman, you seem to think that for some reason I think the M's would add ANY RP to replace DA because they're "replaceable" as I say. Dont be stupid. If the M's like someone from the FA crop (they're going fast) then Im all for moving Aardsma and replacing him with a FA. For instance, if Kerry Wood wanted to sign in Seattle for 1.5 million like he did with the Cubs, Im all for that and then moving the more expensive DA. I dont see whats so wrong about that. "It's frustrating when people make general assumptions about roster construction, and treat it with an antiseptic, as if all things are static and results are easily achieved with proper application." Shut up, my goodness. And no, YOU STILL DONT HAVE A JOB HERE, QUIT TRYING SO HARD. |
| 60. By: Timberwolf on 12-18-2010 13:59:36 The level of personal nastiness on this site is offensive. I have no intention of taking sides or pointing fingers. I thought the whole idea of this place was that people who wanted to know more information had the opportunity to ask questions of people who have access to the people who actually earn their livings in baseball. Obviously there is a lot of self serving posturing and bluffing going on so it isn't an exact science. People should be able to offer an idea or suggestion and expect to either be ignored or get a civil response. It isn't that difficult. I don't think the people who run this site cause the problem, but I would like to see them make a little better effort to to encourage civility. There is some great information here, but I shouldn't have to wade through the venom to get it. |
| 61. By: Rick Randall on 12-18-2010 15:38:45 Agreed - everyone needs to keep there comments to baseball and cool it with the attacks. This is a site for Mariners/Baseball fans to talk about the Mariners and Baseball. Don't come on here to bash other people. If you don't like their idea, you can express that without reverting to attacking the person. That goes for everybody. Just try to keep everything in a friendly tone so Paul doesn't go back to replacing posts with Boy Band lyrics. |
| 62. By: shortstop9 on 12-18-2010 16:48:00 I hope the M's try to work something out with Detroit.They have tons of depth with younger players that would fit in with us. Raburn/Boesch/Kelly for LF and Will Rhymes and Worth in the middle inf. |
| 63. By: shemberry on 12-18-2010 19:43:01 Jason, Is there still going to be a podcast tonight? |
| 64. By: aerichner on 12-19-2010 08:11:22 Zack Greinke to the NL (and not the Rangers) Cliff Lee to the NL (and not the Rangers) I like it. Good job by the Brewers too getting Marcum and Greinke. |
| 65. By: kapoy38 on 12-19-2010 09:48:49 wew another ace going to NL the mariners havent figure out their starting picher |
| 66. By: FelixElRey on 12-19-2010 11:04:58 Jason or Chris, I always find it interesting to hear what an equivalent package would have been fron our system and discuss whether it would have been worth it to us at this point. Thanks |
| 67. By: Marlin Man on 12-19-2010 11:59:57 Happy Holidays to PI staff and all the posters here! Love all the info I get to read here, froM EVERYONE!! Only about 8 weeks until Catchers report!!!!!!!! Got my seaosn seats agin- even though I was ready to throw it in late last year, but I just can't EVER give up on Baseball and the SAFE (What a great park they built us!!) Proud to say I am one of the FEW that have had season seats since day one!!!!! Best to you Jason M.M. |
| 68. By: rjfrik on 12-19-2010 14:30:53 I know we like to crow about 2012 and that's the year but you know who is going to be absolutely great in 2012 and beyond? The Royals. I mean holy shit, the team already has the best collection of high minor league talent in all of baseball (probably the best collection in the last twenty years) and now they add Cain, Escobar and Odorizzi (plus a player to be named who some are speculating is Jeffries). Look out this club is going to get good in a hurry. I envy this infield; Moustakas, Escobar, Colon and Hosmer. Cain and Meyers up the middle at center and catcher is just fine thank you very much. Butler at DH. What about the rotation? No problem with Lamb, Dwyer, Montgomery, Duffy and now Odorizzi all starting the year at AA. And oh yeah, a guy named Crow too boot. Umm. Wow. |
| 69. By: Edman on 12-19-2010 19:01:52 They Royals won't be ready to really compete until 2013 at the earliest. But they have some good young talent and could push a few teams in 2015. Winning teams seldom happen overnight, especially with so much youth. |
| 70. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 12-19-2010 19:52:53 For everyone who likes to speak ill of Dayton Moore the Royals sure look a lot like the Braves of the late eighties early nineties overflowing with young talent aquired through draft and trade. |
| 71. By: Adam T on 12-19-2010 20:10:24 Am I wrong in thinking that the Royals' haul is less than expected? I mean, Pineda, Saunders, Franklin is better than that. Or Montero, Betances, Nunez? Scheppers, Bourbon, Beltre? Dayton Moore strikes again... |
| 72. By: rjfrik on 12-19-2010 20:38:26 Problem Adam is that Moore was asking for three things and wanted two of them to go along with the teams top pitching prospect. Those three things were, MLB ready CF, SS and C. Is it the best practice to pigeon hole yourself into the positions you want in return in a trade? Probably not. My thinking is take the best players you can get regardless of position. But Moore wanted sound up the middle Defense to go along with big bangers on the corners and that's what he got from the Brew Crew. Would Texas include Andrus? I doubt it. The package that you suggest the M's send out does not include a SS who is MLB ready. Franklin is great, but he had one good season in A ball. He needs to be consistent for another two years before he is regarded as a top flight young MLB ready SS. Maybe the Yankees is better, but there is no CF or C there. Montero is not a catcher and the Royals already have the DH of the future in Butler. Moore didn't go for superstar value here in a prospect as none of the guys acquired would crack the Royals top 6 IMO. He went for volume over value and filled it with defensive minded up the middle guys, a potential #3 or #2 starting pitcher and a closer (if he ever gets his priorities together ~ He smokes a lot of pot) Edman. I guess I was more referring to 2012 and beyond. They won't win in 2012 but a lot of those young guys should be up on the big league club and giving their fans something to salivate on. Cain Colon Moustakas Butler Hosmer Meyers RF Gordon Escobar Doesn't seem like that bad of a lineup come 2013. But you never know. They could all be busts. |
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 |