| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 06-20-2010 |
Bedard UPDATE: Bedard threw 52 pitches Monday for the ASL Mariners, fanning three and getting five ground ball outs in 2 2/3 innings. He allowed a run on four hits. He'll go again Saturday and likely throw 60-plus pitches.
Bedard UPDATE: Left-hander Erik Bedard will throw as many as 50 pitches in the season-opener for Peoria in the Arizona Rookie League Monday night. If all goes well, he'll go again Saturday and ramp up the pitch count into the 60s. Without any setbacks, Bedard could make his first big-league start prior to the All-star break early next month.
Right-hander Michael Pineda spent the off day Sunday flying to Portland to join the Tacoma Rainiers after dominating the Southern League for nine weeks.
Here's my take on the move.
Sending Pineda to Triple-A doesn't necessarily help his development, since his shortcomings are about repetition and pitch development. But the move was made to challenge Pineda's fastball-slider combo against better bats to force him to use his changeup more. He's thrown as few as three of his hybrid change/split in starts this season, and he'll need the pitch to profile as a big-league starting pitcher.
Hey may get shredded in the PCL, he may do just fine. But he's going to be throwing his changeup more often. Prospect Insider will be on hand for his first start with the Rainiers this week, video, pitch charts, velocity readings and all, and for the heck of it I'll sit down with the scouts to get a few takes as the game goes on.
I don't have a problem with the sending Pineda to Tacoma, and it's not typically necessary for a kid in Pineda's stages of development, but since he doesn't need a third pitch to dominate in AA, it's difficult to convince him to use it.
It's nice to see the farm system performing, however, and forcing the organization into making these types of decisions. Barring workload concerns, Pineda could see some time in the big leagues in August or September.
michael-pineda\'s-promotion
Comments
The following 55 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: 200tang on 06-20-2010 18:39:36 Being able to finally see him in person is going to be awesome. I look forward to the scouting insight. |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-20-2010 18:49:20 If you make his start this week, 200, come say hello. |
| 3. By: Slack on 06-20-2010 19:34:17 Its nice to see a Mariners pitching prospect rise like this. |
| 4. By: CrustyJuggler on 06-20-2010 20:14:55 Nice. Isn't the game on FSN tomorrow as well? |
| 5. By: CrustyJuggler on 06-20-2010 20:18:07 Nevermind. Doesn't look like it matters since he isn't pitching til Wednesday. Doh. |
| 6. By: rjfrik on 06-20-2010 21:04:18 Jason, I know in a previous post you talk about the Dodgers as a potential trade target and Withrow being a possibility as a player coming back in return. J.Z. has stated he wants young impact bats coming back in a trade. I know he wants young prospects who could make the the MLB quickly or are already there, but, what if he targeted Dee Gordon and Andrew Lambo from the Dodgers. Both are in Double A and won't sniff the bigs until 2012 most likely but both could potentially be big time everyday regulars. Scouts were down and Lambo after a disappointing 09 AA campaign, but I still think he will be a big leaguer with the potential to hit 25 HR's and his left handed bat profiles very well in Safeco. Dee isn't the greatest shortstop defensively, but is adequate and even though he doesn't bring any power to the table he is fast, fast, fast. He could be a table setter at the top of the lineup in the future. My question is this: Are Gordon and Lambo enough to ask for in a trade for Lee? Would we need to ask for a person that is MLB ready as well? Would you take Gordon and Lambo for Lee? Curious. Thanks |
| 7. By: Chris Crawford on 06-20-2010 23:27:45 I saw Pineda in Carolina almost a month ago. Fastball=electric, slider =short, change-up=non-existant for the most part. That may sound like a negative, but it's really not, was very impressive. Don't miss him, I think you guys will like what you see. |
| 8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-21-2010 02:11:44 rj, 1. Tell me where Jack has said he will want impact bats in return. We assume he does, he probably should, but he hasn't said that. THERE HAVE BEEN NO TRADE NEGOTIATIONS, PERIOD. 2. Jack can WANT anything, but it doesn't mean he's getting it. 3. No, I would not take Gordon and Lambo for Lee. Lambo is serving a 50-game suspension, and Gordon may end up Erick Aybar at best, and while that's a nice piece, I think the Ms can do better than that. |
| 9. By: 01v-dubs on 06-21-2010 06:12:09 Jason, while you are watching Pineda's start, could you also pass along a few notes on Mangini? I don't know when the last time you wrote about him was, but he's OPS'ing over 900, and showing more power then he has in years past. I would guess that he would have more problems establishing his glove rather then his bat when it comes to his prospect status. Thanks in advance |
| 10. By: randallball on 06-21-2010 11:56:27 I didn't hear it myself, but a friend told me that Buster Olney said Cliff Lee to the Twins within the next 10 days on Mike & Mike this morning. Any news on that front? |
| 11. By: safecochatter on 06-21-2010 12:28:21 Cliff Lee is "not" on the trade block yet.although between june 29th and as break,july 12th,m's play yankees 7 times.that should about do it. if not,there's 4 games against the angels and 4 against the redsox right after the as break that will do it. |
| 12. By: Rudolf on 06-21-2010 12:43:41 Jason or Chris, can you expound why Wilson Ramos is considered to be an offensive catcher? His stats look middling at best-- limited power, mediocre obp/ops-- and his age matches his level. I'm just not seeing the allure. |
| 13. By: Edman on 06-21-2010 12:47:42 #11, I'm not sure that I understand your statement. Everyone knows Lee's value. Unless he gets injured, all his starts until the trade deadline are just starts. It's not like he has anything to prove. The good news is that the Rangers are on record as being willing to trade within the division. They have a deep and talented farm system. Being a division rival, might give Jack an extra draw from the deck. You generally don't want to make a rival more powerful, so the Rangers may have to anti up a bit more. |
| 14. By: Edman on 06-21-2010 13:35:08 #10, I suspect that's Olney's best guess, not based on anything concrete from the rumor mill. |
| 15. By: graywilli on 06-21-2010 13:40:11 I heard the comment by Olney on M&M this morning. He said he'd be surprised if Lee made more than one more start for the M's and that the best fit was Minnesota. Also that the younger Pohlad sp? was more aggressive than his father. He didn't say anything was imminent. |
| 16. By: maqman on 06-21-2010 13:53:00 Question: What happens if the Ms start winning in the next couple of weeks? |
| 17. By: randallball on 06-21-2010 13:55:22 Thanks graywilli...clearly my friend is a moron. |
| 18. By: rjfrik on 06-21-2010 14:02:18 Thanks Jason, I was curious about those Dodger prospects as they are arguably the two best position prospects in their system. Honestly I wish the Dodgers would just offer us Eithier straight up for Lee and call it a day. About Jack wanting young impact bats in return. That is regurgitated from articles I've read from other baseball writers. Obviously they must be in the wrong and not in the know. |
| 19. By: Edman on 06-21-2010 14:25:14 rj, I think Jack wants value for Lee. Certainly, he'd like help sooner than later, but all his moves have been about value, near or far term. |
| 20. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-21-2010 15:27:23 The M's would have to win like 15 of 19 to get back in the race. If not better. It's not that they have to be winning, they have to be in contention. I'd guess that anything under 8 games and a strong winning trend would be enough to keep Lee and buy a bat instead of selling. Anything less, and it's bye-bye Lee. So, say goodbye. |
| 21. By: safecochatter on 06-21-2010 16:32:05 #13 my #11 statement had nothing to do with lee's value. if the 7 games against the yankees don't knock them far enough back to put lee on the trade block. the games with the angels/redsox after the as break surely will. |
| 22. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-21-2010 16:42:01 There aren't any current negotiations taking place between the M's and any other club including the Twins and Mets. Might they start up tomorrow or the next day? Sure. But as of 3pm et, nothing was in the works. The Twins, however, will be involved to some level. |
| 23. By: Blowgun7 on 06-21-2010 16:52:50 Can somebody answer the question above about why Wilson Ramos is apparently such a good prospect? What is so great about him? I've read mixed information regarding his defensive ability, and he certainly hasn't performed well in AAA. |
| 24. By: Jason A. Churchill on 06-21-2010 19:45:23 Ramos has plus power, plus arm strength, is near-ready of not big-league ready TODAY. Oh, and he's a catcher. I haven't talked to anyone that didn't grade him as average or better in terms of receiving and blocking, to go with the plus arm -- accuracy and strength. The one thing he's not going to do a ton of is get on base. He's not patient and isn't likely to hit for high average. But he's probably a .260 hitter with 20-plus homer power. |
| 25. By: JohnMcD on 06-21-2010 20:27:55 Off topic but garrit Cole struck out the side against TCU. Reaching 97 looks goos through 1 inning |
| 26. By: rjfrik on 06-21-2010 20:40:29 According to Heyman, JZ says the AL West is still winnable and wants to see how the next 2-3 weeks shake out before trying to trade Lee. LOL Delusions of grander. Looks like we can cool on the trade talks for a few weeks. Like Jason said. |
| 27. By: junglist215 on 06-21-2010 21:07:08 Well count me as someone who is against Ramos as the center piece of this deal. He screams incredibly frustrating player to me. In the end talent should win not how close someone is to the majors. If the Phillies stepped in and offered a package built around Cosart and Singleton I would be leaning in that direction no matter how ugly the hole at catcher appears at the moment. |
| 28. By: Edman on 06-21-2010 21:39:43 And what screams incredibly frustrating? If you're gonna make a statement, you should provide reasons. And, who said anything about Jack trading for Ramos, just because he's a catcher? He has talent. We may not agree to what level, but it's not just because he's a catcher, It's because he's a catcher that might make him available, since he is blocked by a young All-Star caliber player. I trust that Jack will make the best deal possible, if he feels it's time to trade Lee. What dillusions would those be, rj? Is Lee gonna be more valuable today, than in 2-3 weeks? Probably not. There is no harm to wait until the deadline, unless someone knocks him over with a deal. Plus, you think he's really gonna play his hand and lessen his ability to negotiate? To the world, his stance has to be that he's not trading Lee. It's how negotiations are done. |
| 29. By: StandinPat on 06-21-2010 22:13:24 There is absolutely zero reason for the M's to advertise that they are shopping Lee. If a team wants him, they are still gonna pick up the phone and inquire about him. |
| 30. By: junglist215 on 06-21-2010 22:18:08 Fair enough. Plate discipline. He just doesn't have it. |
| 31. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-21-2010 23:42:37 According to Heyman, JZ says the AL West is still winnable and wants to see how the next 2-3 weeks shake out before trying to trade Lee. LOL Delusions of grander. What dillusions would those be, rj? Is Lee gonna be more valuable today, than in 2-3 weeks? Probably not. Edman, I think rjfrik was saying NOTHING about Lee's value as a tie-in, I'm thinking that comment was entirely about Heyman being delusional if he thinks the AL West is winnable by the Mariners this year- rendering Heyman's theory of trade abstinence null and void on THAT front. But you're right in that Zduriencik will likely NOT tip his hand. I'm convinced Z can play poker here, and with these chips. I'm also thinking 2-3 weeks for a starting pitcher like Lee is..what? 3-4 starts? That's not insignificant, really. The more starts Lee can make and quite possibly win for a new team, the more value he has inherently. |
| 32. By: slick on 06-22-2010 00:05:01 AZL Roster is super young this year lots of interesting IFA's. Walker not listed on AZL Mariners roster today so Maybe APP League for him same for Morban. |
| 33. By: rjfrik on 06-22-2010 02:11:16 Once again Ed, you read my words and didn't interpret my statement correctly. As Rocket stated. The Delusion is that anyone thinks we have a shot at winning the West. We don't have a chance in hell of even sniffing the top spot in the west. I wasn't saying anything about Lee's trade value. |
| 34. By: Edman on 06-22-2010 02:53:12 No, I understood it perfectly. Jack is not delusional at all. But, he can't admit defeat now, and expect to keep his negotiating position. Bluff or not, there is nothing to be gained for Seattle, by stating the admission that you seem to think is necessary. |
| 35. By: graywilli on 06-22-2010 07:40:04 Jason, Saw over on TR Sullivan's mailbag the Rangers are hot for Lee. He was talking prospects like Martin Perez, Blake Beavan, Tanner Scheppers. Heard anything? http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100621&content_id=11431080&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex |
| 36. By: Edman on 06-22-2010 11:31:47 Texas makes some sense. They need to make a move to help separate themselves from the rest of the pack. They have a deep farm system and could afford to lose a couple prospects without any great impact. Texas really doesn't have what I consider an Ace in their rotation. The rumors are going to fly. You go to MLB Rumors, and there's a Cliff Lee links all over. |
| 37. By: universalguru on 06-22-2010 11:46:34 What I like about Texas is that we can probably work out a great deal BEFORE throwing in Chris Davis, since Smoak is clearly their future. He's only 24 and still has plenty of time to develop into a consistent impact bat. Unfortunately he still needs to cut down on the strikeouts. I hate that Lee has to go but it's great getting a big package for a player for the first time since Randy Johnson (without our hands tied... And without Woody Woodward). |
| 38. By: Adam T on 06-22-2010 11:56:09 I'd be pretty surprised if Perez was included in a deal for Lee. He's pretty darn good. Does Saltalamacchia still have the yips? |
| 39. By: rjfrik on 06-22-2010 14:19:46 Ed, I agree you don't have to state your position and I sure as hell don't think its "necessary". I never insinuated that. You seem to do this a lot. Put words in peoples mouths. All I said is that is was a delusional statement. And it would seem to me every person in the world who follows baseball would know its a delusional statement, unless you are a moron or a homer. Every baseball GM or executive knows there isn't a shot in hell the M's have a chance at winning the west and knows the statement was posturing. Every exec sees the delusion in that statement. It's funny. That is all. I thought it was funny. You like to reference card playing a lot. This would be like if JZ was heads up with you and you had A2 in your hand. The flop is 2 2 2. You have the nuts. But JZ says, "yes, I have four of a kind, sorry about your luck kid" and pushes all his chips into the pot. You would look at him blankly for a second, chuckle and say "sure you do, I call" flip over your cards and smile at him while you clean him out. If I was to watch that on TV I would laugh my ass off at how delusional JZ the card player was and I would enjoy the look on his face after you call and turn over your cards. Same situation here. I thought it was funny and had a good laugh at such a ridiculous statement, even though it was a statement that had to be made for posturing sakes. I understand the game, Ed. Sometimes the game is comical. Such as this case. |
| 40. By: baseballman on 06-22-2010 14:46:50 What are the chances the Ms go after Lee in the offseason? Correct me if Im wrong, but Lee is pretty deadset on testing the FA market, right? So if we trade and he does not sign an extension with whatver team he gets shipped to, with the "hopefully" good relationship the team has built with him and if they can show theyve improved between now and FA, why not? Is this a pipe dream to trade Lee for a coup only to re-sign him in the offseason? or will he be gone forever once we trade him? |
| 41. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-22-2010 14:50:02 No, I understood it perfectly. Jack is not delusional at all. But, he can't admit defeat now, and expect to keep his negotiating position. Oooookay. Aside from the fact that with that statement, you're saying "rjfrik's a big ol' fibber about his own statements' intent", you've gotten the owner of the supposed delusion wrong, Edman. rj said nothing about Jack Zduriencik's state of mind. That's JON HEYMAN that rjfrik's calling delusional if he thinks the Mariners have any kind of statistical shot at winning the AL West title. It's no big thing to admit you didn't get the real shebang before you posted about it. Happens all the time. I've been known to type before I had the real handle on what someone was saying. |
| 42. By: Edman on 06-22-2010 14:58:29 No shot in hell? Practically, there isn't. But, no shot implies that it's impossible, and mathmatically, that's not true. As remote a chance as it is, as Geoff Baker pointed out, there are cases that show it's not impossible. Think "Colorado Rockies". I'm not a homer, nor am I a moron. However, would it not be moronic to say that something that is actually improbable, becomes impossible, when emotion and skeptism are factored in? Your hypothetical scenario doesn't play out. All Jack has to do is convince other GMs that he's willing to hold on to Lee. There is NOTHING, other than skeptics like you, to compell Jack to trade Lee. All he has to do is convince his opponents that he's willing to play his cards as they are. If they want to pay him to throw in his cards, then so be it. Personally, if I were Jack, I'd be content with draft picks, unless someone makes it worth listening. How do you know Jack doesn't really feel that way? The ridiculous one is you, rj, believing that what YOU believe, is the only truth. |
| 43. By: Edman on 06-22-2010 15:03:43 rocketdawg, I suggest you reread rj's statement. He wasn't calling Heyman dilussional, he was calling Jack, dilussional. Why would Heyman have dilussions of grander? |
| 44. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-22-2010 15:04:33 So if we trade and he does not sign an extension with whatever team he gets shipped to, with the "hopefully" good relationship the team has built with him and if they can show they've improved between now and FA, why not? Is this a pipe dream to trade Lee for a coup only to re-sign him in the off-season? or will he be gone forever once we trade him? baseballman, gone for at least the next few years while his value's so high, I'm afraid. The reason being, the Mariners have so many holes for the 2011 squad that it's going to tax the combined efforts of farm and free agency in order to fill them. That's priority #1 for them, and as a result? They just won't look into the big-name pitcher rodeos, with the multi-years for 80-million-plus. Like Lee. They like Lee, nay, they love him. But once he hits free agency the odds of him wearing a Mariners' uni in his playing career again is extremely minute. |
| 45. By: randallball on 06-22-2010 15:41:48 42. By: Edman on 06-22-2010 14:58:29 No shot in hell? Practically, there isn't. But, no shot implies that it's impossible, and mathmatically, that's not true. As remote a chance as it is, as Geoff Baker pointed out, there are cases that show it's not impossible. Think "Colorado Rockies". 710 ESPN was trying to make that "Rockies argument" yesterday afternoon. FYI, the Rockies only had to go 52-39 in the 2nd half back in their WS year. 52-39 for the M's this season doesn't get us squat. And on top of that, we don't have the offense ANYWHERE IN THE ORG to make 52-39 attainable. |
| 46. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-22-2010 15:48:06 rocketdawg, I suggest you reread rj's statement. He wasn't calling Heyman dilussional, he was calling Jack, dilussional. Why would Heyman have dilussions of grander? Okay. From Post #26: According to Heyman, JZ says the AL West is still winnable and wants to see how the next 2-3 weeks shake out before trying to trade Lee. LOL Delusions of grandeur. Edman, this is fair enough. I can concede that point, on who was to be construed as "delusional". The phrasing of the sentence makes for no other conclusion. My bad. But it doesn't change the fact that you're trying to take rjfrik to task for something that he has stated wasn't his intent to say. So near as I can tell, rjfrik- from the beginning- only meant to say that "The M's have no feasible chance to win the 2010 AL West title, and every exec, GM and knowledgeable fan knows this". That's what I was getting out of him, and he said as much that that was his whole point(see post#33). And if he says so, we should take him at his word. Probably he could've abstained from using "delusions of grandeur" to make his point- as that's a fault specifically belonging to some people, and not a characteristic of a situation. Since you can't use that term without casting aspersions on someone who's in your sentence, the choice may not have been the best one. And regarding the Lee situation: Fundamentally, you're right, of course. That's just Business 101. There is absolutely no reason for Zduriencik to be making any calls looking for a deal, or giving any indication what he wants to do at this point in time. His stance should be: "If you have an idea to pay me into ditching my cards, make me listen. But I don't have to make stuff happen here and now." More than that, I think (as I've stated before) Jack has more than a fair idea of what he has, and its intrinsic value. Moreso, he won't OVERPLAY his hand. He's got the savvy to know when the best deal he'll get is right in front of him. And the savvy to know when the right deal ISN'T there, and just hold onto the cards. Overall, I think we all can just cool our jets on any Cliff Lee bounty. These things do take time, they're never just slapped together like a BLT sandwich. I keep thinking the Mets and Omar Minaya (who is dancing on thin ice with rusty skates) are seriously going to enter the fray, though. |
| 47. By: rjfrik on 06-22-2010 16:46:16 Wow Edman you just keep inflating your status as a jerk, but I believe that is your intent, which is your prerogative. Ok. If you think the all mighty M's are going to win the west. Lets do this. I own a house worth about a million dollars. I will make you a bet. Your 1000 dollars against the deed to my house. You down to make the bet? Why would I be willing to make such an absurd bet? Because the M's don't have a chance in hell to win the west and anyone that thinks they do, in my opinion, has delusions of grander. If you think the contrary, lets make the bet. The Prospect Insider member will be our witnesses. My original statement never had any intent on the value of Cliff Lee. I could care less if he stays or if he goes. It doesn't matter to me one bit. I trust that management will get the best value out of him through the draft picks or a trade. But to say that we have a chance at winning the west is a joke and delusional. |
| 48. By: randallball on 06-22-2010 17:04:08 Just so everyone knows, its "grandeur". |
| 49. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-22-2010 17:22:22 I think Edman's a bit too bright to bet his own monetary assets that the M's WILL win the AL West. His entire thing was one of mathematics- and it's true. Numerically, we're NOT eliminated yet, rj. Although it's really just a matter of time before we are, in terms of statistical history. And we all know the high probability that we're NOT going to win this division this year. That'd be some titanium-strength testicular fortitude for him to take such an outlandish bet. |
| 50. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-22-2010 17:29:07 Just so everyone knows, its "grandeur". Yeah, I tried to point that out without going all Syntax Gestapo on the deal. C'mon, guys. I realize my own part in it, but we don't need this kind of "top this,a--hole" stuff. We all know the facts of the matter, and we all have to wait to see what's going to happen. And none of us have a more lucid view of what those next events will be than the other guy posting. We're all outsiders, waiting for the information. |
| 51. By: rocketdawg31 on 06-22-2010 17:30:58 Criminy. Sorry about that. I hate screwing up HTML tags! |
| 52. By: Edman on 06-22-2010 17:48:53 I'm not a jerk at all, rj. But I am not a fan of smug comments. We all know that the odds of winning the west are astronomical. You turned a comment that Jack made to keep Lee's value high, into a commentary on him being unable to grasp the reality of the M's situation. Is he only suppose to speak the truth, even if it hurts the franchise? |
| 53. By: FelixElRey on 06-22-2010 19:58:12 My stance on the whole posturing thing (which I think we can all agree that is what JZ is doing) is that saying Lee is available doesn't reduce our leverage. I feel like the truth is adequate in our obvious situation. Jack could easily say, "We are in a position that dealing valuable pieces (Lee and others)may improve our team for 2011 and beyond. We are open to offers and inquiries and will consider them all, but we are also willing to hold onto our pieces (Lee) if offers from other clubs do not exceed the value of potential draft compensation." The package heading our way will not improve because teams think we HAVE to deal Lee (because we truly do not). The package will improve because multiple teams will be bidding for his services. My whole point is that the posturing seems fruitless since Lee value is not tied directly to our having to deal him, but rather his value to contending teams. |
| 54. By: Rudolf on 06-22-2010 20:39:37 Jack posturing is hardly a surprise. He's playing the game and so is Heyman. No one is delusional here, outside of this chatroom. |
| 55. By: Saltydawg05 on 06-23-2010 16:42:37 Anybody going to the game tonight? |
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 |