| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 05-23-2011 |
We chatted at 8 pm, tackling inquiries on who the M's might take at Nos. 2 and 62 in the upcoming draft, when Ackley will be called up -- and why not now -- the left field conundrum and whether or not the M's can and should be players at this year's trade deadline.
To view a transcript of the chat, click here.
pi-chat-@-8pm
Comments
The following 76 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Jason A. Churchill on 05-24-2011 00:15:15 In the chat I mention the Wichita lefthander, but typed Lowery. It's Lowell. Charlie Lowell. Good thing I re-read these. |
| 2. By: everblue77 on 05-24-2011 07:11:11 JC - missed the chat last night but read this am. Good stuff! Had a couple questions on some low A arms. Snow, Burgoon & Pryor...where do you see them in the org? Any word on progress and where the org may want them next year? Has Fields leveled out in AA? Thanks |
| 3. By: baseballfan on 05-24-2011 07:30:35 Jason and other posters - Brett Lawrie for Dustin Ackley? Who hangs up first or fair trade? |
| 4. By: masonb on 05-24-2011 09:46:02 I think Jack hangs up first. Ackley is a better fit for Safeco, IMO |
| 5. By: bcsimons on 05-24-2011 09:58:00 Great Chat, wish I could have made it. Stupid east coast time difference. One question that I had hoped to ask was, what do you know about Riley Moore, C, from San Marcos? Were do you think he could fit in this draft? Thanks. |
| 6. By: dawgncarolina on 05-24-2011 10:29:01 baseballfan - probably a fair trade, but coming into the year everyone would have taken Ackley and 6 hot weeks from Lawrie shouldn't be enough to change that. Yes, I know he's hitting even better on the road than at home, but that you still have to ding his numbers some because there's no way Vegas hasn't benefited him at all. If you take Lawrie you're basically betting that this year's power is real, because Ackley has better contact skills and a significantly better eye. Obviously, Lawrie is two years younger than Ackley, which gives him more presumed distance between now and his ultimate upside, but I still don't think he's likely to ever hit for a higher average than DA and it's highly highly unlikely he'll post a higher obp. I'll still take Ackley. |
| 7. By: short on 05-24-2011 14:31:08 If I had been able to make the chat I'd have asked: What's the deal with Johan Limonta? He appears to have shown decent plate discipline and has hit for high average throughout his minor league career. He's blazing hot this season, putting up a .362 / .404 / .472 line. Does he lack the power he needs for where he sits on the defensive spectrum? Are his BA and OBP somehow the result of smoke and mirrors? |
| 8. By: MarinerCoug on 05-24-2011 15:56:52 JAC: Regarding Lowell, you mentioned in several places previously that the top of RD2 could be litered with guys that are #3 starter types and I'm curious, does that mean quick ETA #3s (ala Mike Leak), or developmental #3 types..? |
| 9. By: dawgncarolina on 05-24-2011 23:03:53 Looks like the M's might have gotten a #3 starter in the fourth round last year. Heck of a start for Paxton today. |
| 10. By: acqb1424 on 05-25-2011 11:09:37 Jason, What do you think of WSU pitcher Adam Condley? Would he be a possibility at 62 for the M's? |
| 11. By: MarinerCoug on 05-25-2011 11:30:55 @acqb- I know the question was directed at Jason, but... Conley has arm issues to put it mildly. Last fall they found a small crack in his elbow that needed to be fixed with surgery. He then had a horrible spring and was recently shut down when he complained of feeling tingling in his hand. I would be surprised if Adam is a top 10 RD selection at this point, which breaks my heart b/c he said no to the Dodgers last summer for a chance to lead the Cougs to the CWS and increase his draft stock, neither of which is going to happen. |
| 12. By: Enpassant on 05-25-2011 12:34:31 @MarinerCoug Pretty sure you're thinking of Chad Arnold since he had the arm injury and was drafted by the Dodgers last year. Baseball America has Conley listed @#69 on their 2011 draft top 200 list they released earlier today. Seems a lot people are concerned with his lack of a good breaking pitch that they think will limit him to a relief role in the majors. |
| 13. By: MarinerCoug on 05-25-2011 12:39:53 @Enpassant... Duh (on me, not you), yes I am. I ALWAYS get those to mixed up... It's the damn initials: CA/AC. Christ, my apologies. |
| 14. By: rjfrik on 05-25-2011 13:12:31 I love that one of the lead articles on ESPN today reads: Asdrubal Cabrera - Indians Superstar! Thank you Bill Bavasi, thank you. |
| 15. By: rjfrik on 05-25-2011 13:14:14 Wow, I spoke to soon. You then go to the main MLB page and the lead article reads: Dynamic Duo! And it talks about how the Indians capitalized on the trades made with the M's in 2006. LOL. Once again, thank you Bill Bavasi, thank you. |
| 16. By: Pumpkin on 05-25-2011 13:24:19 Jason great stuff i am bummed I couldn't make that chat. I had one question about the mariners Minor League in the VSL and DSL. Just wondering if you knew of any of the players on either of those rosters who we should keep an eye on. I know it is very hard to predict anything about these players but if you have heard anything from you scouts about players on these rosters I would love to hear about it. Thanks and great job on the chat again. |
| 17. By: rjfrik on 05-25-2011 13:29:13 Sorry for the repost, but I just read the article and every M's fan should read it. Here is the link. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=6581022 A few pieces that really popped out to me: "Seattle, conversely, was willing to dig into its prospect inventory for short-term upgrades even though the team was not at the point of contending. The Mariners finished 15 games out of first place in the AL West in 2006 at 78-84 -- an identical record to Cleveland's. But former GM Bill Bavasi said the M's were trying to send a message to the fan base and the players that the club was serious about winning." and this statement from Bavasi "The 2006 club was sort of starting to get it together and we believed it was important for the players to see we were serious about … maybe not winning … but at least getting better now." This is why you don't ship prospects off for guys that are stop gaps or guys that can provide a minor but immediate upgrade when you are not in an adequate position to win a pennant. I know we were all discussing this in a previous thread. "The Cabrera deal, in contrast, continues to sting. In hindsight, Bavasi concedes he made a "bad mistake'' in not consulting Bob Engle, who was running the Mariners' international scouting operation and had signed Cabrera as a 16-year-old free agent out of Venezuela. "Bob was really upset as the year went on and Eduardo sat,'' Bavasi said. "As opposed to the Choo deal, I thought, 'The GM of this Seattle club is a f---ing idiot." And this is why Bill Bavasi was by far the worst GM in the history of sports. It simply amazes me. A good CEO puts people around him that do their jobs extremely well. You confide and rely on these people to make decisions based on their individual expert analysis. You then make your decisions based off their decisions and your own. But to completely do something on your own with no regard for the thoughts of your staff is just plain idiotic. I cannot believe anyone would ever hire this guy to run a team. What a bunch of idiots. |
| 18. By: baseballman on 05-25-2011 13:32:24 rj, we get it. all your bavasi posts are not really needed. time to move on. It's 2011, bavasi hasn't been apart of the M's for a few years, isn't it time to talk about present and the future? |
| 19. By: rjfrik on 05-25-2011 14:07:20 Agreed baseballman. I didn't bring up the topic. ESPN did. And since it is about the M's and we are all M's fans I thought it was a good read. It especially brought to light facts I didn't know. Which to me paint a clearer picture on the situation back then. Also, the other reason I posted it is because it directly correlates to a topic that Jason just brought up. "Should we buy more pieces right now." We are in nearly the same situation that the 2006 team was and that team went out and bought when they shouldn't have. That's all. |
| 20. By: Edman on 05-25-2011 14:32:57 You didn't bring it up, ESPN did? Did they pop in and post a link? Be honest about it. So what, Bavasi took a shot to try to win the division. They were close enough that had they not fallen into a horrible losing streak in August, could have been in it until the end. You take risks at the opportunity to get to the playoffs. As can be witnessed with teams like the Twins, White Sox, Tigers......winning isn't alway done on paper. For a team like Seattle in 2006, they needed to take a shot at getting to the playoffs. Yes, the odds were against them, but that's what you do. If you don't have the balls to take risks, then don't become a GM. And, lets be fair. Choo and Cabrera weren't exactly top prospects at the time. Choo put up good numbers at AAA, but nothing the smelled of superstar. Previous minor league seasons weren't indicating that kind of status. As for Cabrera, he had some very good minor league seasons, before he got to Tacoma. He struggled at AAA that year. Baseball is a game about what you've done lately, and Cabrera hadn't done much. Would I like them back? Yes. Would I want Jack to fret over making a deal, because of those trades? Not for a second. They are different situations with different kinds of team make-up. Winners take risks, if need be. Losers lament over the fact that they didn't. |
| 21. By: dawgncarolina on 05-25-2011 14:37:53 "As for Cabrera, he had some very good minor league seasons, before he got to Tacoma. He struggled at AAA that year. Baseball is a game about what you've done lately, and Cabrera hadn't done much." There were *ahem* people pointing out to you at the time that Bavasi's policy of ridiculously overaggressive promotion was skewing the perception of Cabrera and that a 20 year old SS in Triple A shouldn't be expected to be performing better than he was. You did not want to listen then. Unfortunately, neither did Bavasi. I'm surprised by Choo's success in the bigs. Not at all by Cabrera's. |
| 22. By: Edman on 05-25-2011 14:52:30 Yes dawg, there was. I wasn't thrilled by Bavasi's over-promotion of Cabrera (and a couple others). He shouldn't have been in Tacoma, on that we both agree. However, it's a tough sell when it comes trade time. If that's the only player that Cleveland would consider, then it gets down to tough choices. There weren't a lot of teams moving the kind of help Seattle needed at the price they were willing to pay. Regardless, that doesn't make trading him improper. Prospects are always a gamble, sans the Griffey Jr.'s of the world. I got it, but you were just as unwilling to consider the value of reaching the playoffs, even at the risk of losing a good prospect. Had those two panned out and pushed the M's into the playoffs, would you be crying over Cabrera? Unfortunately what drove Bavasi were the miserable seasons in the preceeding years. Winning becomes more important, when you don't have continued success. I get that, do you? |
| 23. By: Edman on 05-25-2011 15:00:34 Also consider that they had what they thought was their middle infield of the future, in Lopez and Betencourt, so Cabrera was somewhat a spare piece. It does show the value of making bad decisions based on apparent value. It was a flawed belief as we all know. |
| 24. By: subterranean on 05-25-2011 15:07:18 Just because a piece is spare doesn't mean you should undervalue it Ed. And just because the results aren't there doesn't mean the talent and projection isn't. That's why you have scouts, advisors, etc., to consult before making these decisions. These discussions about Bavasi's moves are pertinent today and to our hypothetical discussions of "if I were the GM" because it provides insight into Bavasi's process and decision-making. Sometimes the results of a trade don't work out, but we need to be able to evaluate what the thought process and reasoning were that went into the decision and critique it based on that, not the future result. |
| 25. By: dawgncarolina on 05-25-2011 15:10:12 "I got it, but you were just as unwilling to consider the value of reaching the playoffs, even at the risk of losing a good prospect. Had those two panned out and pushed the M's into the playoffs, would you be crying over Cabrera?" The problem with this line of thinking is that the M's were pretty clearly not as good as their record indicated. They were playing above their heads and mortgaging the future for a slim chance at the playoffs was the wrong move. Yes, had they made the playoffs it was still the wrong move. |
| 26. By: dawgncarolina on 05-25-2011 15:12:59 "Unfortunately what drove Bavasi were the miserable seasons in the preceeding years. Winning becomes more important, when you don't have continued success. I get that, do you?" Actually I disagree completely. When you've demonstrated an inability to win consistently you don't give up the chance to win in the future for a slim chance to win now. That's how you end up going a decade without a playoff appearance. It's completely shortsighted. "Also consider that they had what they thought was their middle infield of the future, in Lopez and Betencourt, so Cabrera was somewhat a spare piece. It does show the value of making bad decisions based on apparent value. It was a flawed belief as we all know." Yes, the overvaluing of Betancourt and Lopez clearly factored in to their willingness to deal Droobs. That doesn't justify undervaluing him though. |
| 27. By: Edman on 05-25-2011 15:26:11 There has already been way more discussion on this than it deserves. Learn from it, leave it in the past, and move on. |
| 28. By: FWBrodie on 05-25-2011 16:21:19 Edman paraphrased: "Don't bring up Bill Bavasi, I support Bavasi's moves in '06." "Bavasi trading Choo/Cabrera didn't hurt him, what he did before did." (Even though destroying his farm system was quite obviously Bavasi's downfall) "Bavasi had the double play twins so trading away promising MI talent for one half of a one year DH platoon stopgap was justified." "Nobody talk about Bill Bavasi anymore, leave it in the past even though I just spent 800 more words than anyone else on the topic." Where do you come up with this crap? |
| 29. By: Edman on 05-25-2011 16:35:48 Same place you come up with yours, just a different spin. |
| 30. By: rjfrik on 05-25-2011 16:56:36 24. By: subterranean on 05-25-2011 15:07:18 Wow somebody actually gets it!! (not that others don't but subterranean's post is exactly why I brought this article up.) Very interesting read that gives you a lot of insight to what was being thought by certain people at the time. And it most definitely correlates to the current M's and directions they may or may not go. |
| 31. By: short on 05-25-2011 17:23:24 From Twitter: @ProspectInsider Rumblings from a couple of sources saying the @Mariners may strongly consider calling up Dustin Ackley for the series versus the Yankees. Oh please Oh please Oh please. |
| 32. By: short on 05-25-2011 18:24:21 By the way, on the Cabrerra / Choo debacles: practically every baseball site is now talking about this. It's unavoidable. Plus it's always in the back of my mind when we play Cleveland, and really killed me on opening night when Asdrubal homered. And it's not like we went anywhere that year. We stank. The players we got stank. They sat on the bench. I'm sure when Justin Smoak is 3/4 with a homer against Texas they'll think "Man I can't believe we traded that guy. Oh, wait...that's how we got to the World Series." If we had made it to the World Series it wouldn't sting at all. |
| 33. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-25-2011 21:13:00 Happiness is appreciating what you have rather than fretting over what you don't. |
| 34. By: StandinPat on 05-25-2011 21:32:33 We have/have had a hole in the OF an in the middle of the IF for years...that certainly hasn't made anyone happy |
| 35. By: Tommy O on 05-25-2011 23:39:40 In ten years time if I'm Cleveland, I'm calling Seattle for another give away superstar SS (that'd be the third one). I'm so tired of us giving away premium talent. It started with the Julio Cruz, Mike Moore, Spike Owen, Dave Henderson, Danny Tartabull trades and 30 years later the bullshit trades haven't stopped. Why did I have to be a Mariners f__ing fan. I apologize for my attitude but, everyone make draft mistakes but, I'm sick and tired of us get raped on 9 out of every trade we make. |
| 36. By: Tommy O on 05-25-2011 23:41:45 That's 9 every every 10 |
| 37. By: Tommy O on 05-25-2011 23:48:08 And it's a lot deeper than Bavasi. This franchise has been getting pimped slapped in trades for decades. When will we be rewarded for fanatic love for Thor LA Clippers or MLB. |
| 38. By: Tommy O on 05-25-2011 23:52:02 Sorry, darn ipad keys- the LA Clippers of MLB |
| 39. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-26-2011 00:00:34 Have not gotten taken on a trade since Jack Z has arrived....I appreciate that and him!!! |
| 40. By: Tommy O on 05-26-2011 00:01:51 39 agree |
| 41. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-26-2011 00:03:49 Speaking of trades...how about Brendan Ryan? He is playing really well. |
| 42. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-26-2011 00:20:39 Paxton today- "The lefty prospect pitched six innings, allowing one run on three hits, while striking out 12 batters and walking two to get his first professional win." |
| 43. By: FWBrodie on 05-26-2011 00:34:08 39) Morrow? |
| 44. By: baseballman on 05-26-2011 00:39:30 What about Morrow? |
| 45. By: StandinPat on 05-26-2011 01:21:27 Morrow was a Suspect trade But Paxton, can't not like that pick |
| 46. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 02:36:46 Exactly, baseballman, what about Morrow? If he was in Seattle, he wouldn't even make it as the fifth starter. When he stays healthy, puts up 200 innings and has an ERA near 4.00, then I'll consider it a bust of a trade. At the moment, he's still what he was in Seattle....lots of potential, but not much realized. |
| 47. By: StandinPat on 05-26-2011 11:34:44 "Exactly, baseballman, what about Morrow? If he was in Seattle, he wouldn't even make it as the fifth starter." If he hadn't been traded he would have definitely been in the rotation, with the M's either not re-signing Bedard or holding Pineda back. "When he stays healthy, puts up 200 innings" So this is your criteria for not viweing Morrow as a loss, but you've been wholly against the idea of Trading Bedard who hadn't thrown 200 innings in the previous three years total? |
| 48. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 11:50:39 "Exactly, baseballman, what about Morrow? If he was in Seattle, he wouldn't even make it as the fifth starter." One of the more ridiculoust statements I've seen here. Give him the M's defense and Safeco and his 2010 would have been far superior to either Vargas or Fister. His BABIP was .366. Give him either Fister's .302 or Vargas' .278 and he blows either of them away. It's not his fault the Jays defense is terrible, or that he pitches in the SkyDome. I'm not sure which one wouldn't be in the rotation (or Bedard) but Morrow would be starting here had we kept him. I'm a big (big) Z fan, but losing Morrow hurts. He's good. |
| 49. By: vandal08 on 05-26-2011 11:56:46 Jason or Chris, Is Brandon Mauer a legit prospect? It looks like he's been having a pretty good year, and I've seen his name mentioned as someone to watch (in an earlier post). Does he project to be a stater? |
| 50. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 12:14:41 Good question, vandal. Maurer's first two starts in HD have caught my eye as well, particularly last night's. |
| 51. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 12:21:34 dawg, it's not about what Morrow could do, but rather what he is doing. He could very well be a very good pitcher. But, until he stays healthy and puts up at least back-to-back seasons with consistant appearances and numbers, he's still potential. At the moment, there is nothing that says which team got the best return. If League is at least the set-up man in the pen over the next 3+ years, while Morrow struggles to post 100 innings, I'll take League, and I'm not a big League fan. |
| 52. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 12:28:07 "He could very well be a very good pitcher. But, until he stays healthy and puts up at least back-to-back seasons with consistant appearances and numbers, he's still potential." Funny that you're ready to anoint Vargas and Fister as staples in the rotation though they've never done that either. At this point in time, the Jays got the better end of that deal and it's not close. Chavez could potentially change things a bit, but he looks lost in Double A. But again, the bottom line is that, at the time of the trade, Morrow had more value than the package we got back for him. It's Cabrera part 2. And, yet again, I remind you that I love Z. But I'm not blind. Of course, neither is he. I guarantee you he'd redo that trade if he had the chance. |
| 53. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 12:28:30 to clarify, "redo" meaning undo |
| 54. By: StandinPat on 05-26-2011 12:30:59 "dawg, it's not about what Morrow could do, but rather what he is doing." And what he is doing is leading all of baseball in Starter K/9 and posting both a FIP and xFIP that would be first on the M's. Yeah, no chance that guy cracks the rotation. "He could very well be a very good pitcher." He already is. "But, until he stays healthy and puts up at least back-to-back seasons with consistant appearances and numbers, he's still potential." So your knock on Morrow is that in the one season he's been given the opportunity to be a full-time starter, he hasn't had back-to-back seasons? Got to be honest, most pitchers are gonna struggle with that. "At the moment, there is nothing that says which team got the best return." League .4 WAR in 2010, .3 thus far in 2011 Morrow Already 1.1 in 2011 If by "nothing" you meant quantitative evidence, then I completely agree. |
| 55. By: subterranean on 05-26-2011 12:55:50 I think this is the problem Ed, you're saying the way to judge the League/Morrow trade is based on their performance years from now. Then in some hypothetical future we will look back in hindsight and evaluate the result. We can look at League/Morrow or Choo/Cabrera trades in hindsight, but in order to properly evaluate them we have to look at how they were conceived at the time and what value could be expected in the future (and the odds they reach that). The thing that stuck out to me in the Cabrera article was how neither side really expected either Cabrera or Choo to turn into what they have. I also think Zdurenciek was betting against Morrow by trading him when he did. He was betting that the value he would get from League/Chavez was more value than he could expect in the future from Morrow. Otherwise, there's no excuse. If Jack and his staff felt that there were good odds Morrow was going to turn into a solid #2-#3 pitcher then they would have held on to him. |
| 56. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 13:16:42 Exactly, subterranean. Unfortunately, we all judge trades based on results and forget the reasoning behind a trade. Regardless, the Mariners can't let fear of making a bad trade influence their decisions, and I'm sure they don't. Luckily, I think Jack's personality is such that he's not going to be influenced by past trades, good or bad. |
| 57. By: baseballman on 05-26-2011 14:15:14 "It's Cabrera part 2." Beyond ridiculous. I'm not sure if you're saying this in order to cause further friction with edman or if you honestly believe it... It seems some here argue the exact opposite of edman just to argue because they would rather take the opposite stance than him no matter what the subject is even if they don't necessarily agree with what they are saying. |
| 58. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 14:21:25 Allow me to clarify baseballman. The Mariners overpromoted Cabrera and thus undervalued him when he didn't hit as a 20 year old in Triple A. Likewise, the M's jacked around with Morrow, never letting him settle in as a starter and accumulate innings, and thus undervalued him. I didn't mean to suggest that the return was as bad as what we got for Cabrera, just that the root cause of both poor trades was the same - mishandling of prospects/young players that caused the organization to overreact to poor performances. I'm not at all afraid to agree with Edman on the occasions that I agree with him. |
| 59. By: baseballman on 05-26-2011 14:27:13 Pat, you can't leave out other players invovled in the trade just to make your point. The trade wasn't Morrow for League for 2010 and 2 months of 2011. The trade was Morrow for League AND Chavez. Are you prepared to call Chavez a bust? Because that's basically what you're doing by leaving him out of the discussion. Besides, it's far too early to judge who won the trade or not. If you want to make the case that Toronto has gotten an earlier return then try to make that case. |
| 60. By: baseballman on 05-26-2011 14:28:52 OK dawg, that makes sense. That last part of the comment wasn't directed at you though. |
| 61. By: subterranean on 05-26-2011 14:45:06 I love it - we have some agreement! Question on the side for Jason or anyone else who wants to chime in - I keep hearing about what a great athlete Bubba Starling is but I'm not sure how to translate this into something I can clearly grasp so - in your opinion how does Starlings athleticism compare to someone like Greg Halman? The thought of having a Halmanesque CF prospect who can actually read pitches and understand the strike zone is pretty tantalizing. Thoughts? |
| 62. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 14:47:11 Not Jason but I think Starling is as athletic if Halman if not moreso, though he probably doesn't have Halman's power. |
| 63. By: slamcactus on 05-26-2011 15:09:37 "Exactly, subterranean. Unfortunately, we all judge trades based on results and forget the reasoning behind a trade." A lot of people hated the Asdrubal Cabrera trade when it was made. Most people, in fact. The only person I can think of in the blogosphere who liked it was Dr. Detecto, who loudly proclaimed we had just acquired Manny Ramirez vs. Lefties. But he's absolutely crazy (still waiting for Francisco Cruceta to turn into Jason Schmidt in his prime, and for Jose Lopez to turn into Miguel Tejada). We gave up 6 years of club-control of a 20-year-old SS for a guy who wasn't even an everyday player. A half-season of a guy who faces lefties only gets you about 130 plate appearances. It was a really crappy trade from the day it was made, and would have been a really crappy trade even if Cabrera had been a total bust. Even if he only had a 5% chance of panning out (he didn't, his odds were much, much better), it would've been a bad trade, because a successful Cabrera is far more than 20X as valuable as a half-season of Eduardo Perez as a DH against lefties. Are you really still arguing that Bavasi's moves were good? I mean, I know you defended him like crazy back in the day when he was busy destroying the franchise for years to come, but I would've thought he'd be pretty much thoroughly discredited even in your eyes by now. How long are you going to continue apologizing for moves that were ridiculous at the time and look even more ridiculous in retrospect? Bavasi was the laughingstock of the entire league as a GM. He gets a moderate amount of respect as a mid-level FO guy, but GMs actually used to laugh about how much they loved trading with the guy, because he'd pretty much give you anything you asked for once he decided he wanted a player. Stop trying to defend him. He was a major league GM for 11 seasons, and had a .461 winning percentage with two high payroll teams (and only 3 winning seasons). His results sucked. His process sucked. He was very bad at that job. And one of his most glaring weaknesses was that he had no idea how to properly value his players and players on other teams, so his trades super-sucked. He is the only GM in history to spend more than $100 million on a team and lose more than 100 games. I'm all about judging the process and not the results. Bavasi's process was absolutely awful. |
| 64. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 15:12:12 "The only person I can think of in the blogosphere who liked it was Dr. Detecto, who loudly proclaimed we had just acquired Manny Ramirez vs. Lefties. But he's absolutely crazy (still waiting for Francisco Cruceta to turn into Jason Schmidt in his prime, and for Jose Lopez to turn into Miguel Tejada)." Don't forget his spectacularly sound reason why "Yuniesky Betancourt IS Alfonso Soriano" before Yuni ever saw a big league pitch. Detecto is...special. Great post on the trade, pretty much nailed it. |
| 65. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 16:30:00 slam, what is your fixation on "6 years of club control"? Everyone knows that. Should they not trade any good prospect, because they might lose those six years? Which is greater...... six years of club control for a good prospect or a chance to play in the post-season? And please, NOW Cabrera is probably 50X as good as Perez. He's far exceeded anyone's expectations, even the most optimistic. Sometimes, that happens. There are probably some in Boston who still cry over giving up Moyer for Bragg. However, they can always fell better for getting Lowe and Varitek. It happens in baseball. It will happen again. Nobody, as brilliant as they think they are, cannot predict how a prospect will turn out, with rare exception players like ARod and Griffey. Can we stop crying over it now? |
| 66. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 16:36:51 Please excuse the typos....sheesh. |
| 67. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 16:44:02 "And please, NOW Cabrera is probably 50X as good as Perez. He's far exceeded anyone's expectations, even the most optimistic." But that's kind of the point. It's not a terrible trade because Cabrera exceeded everyone's expectations, it was a terrible trade at the moment it was made. |
| 68. By: baseballman on 05-26-2011 16:45:38 I can't wait for JAC to put up a new post so everyone stops talking about Bavasi and Cabrera...this is getting ridiculous!! |
| 69. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 16:53:31 Amen, baseballman. |
| 70. By: slamcactus on 05-26-2011 19:18:49 "slam, what is your fixation on "6 years of club control"? Everyone knows that. Should they not trade any good prospect, because they might lose those six years? Which is greater...... six years of club control for a good prospect or a chance to play in the post-season?" On the free agent market, wins above replacement cost about $5 million apiece. To contend, you need to put yourself at least in the 87-88 win range. In free agency, that means spending about $210-215 million/year to compete. Obviously, no team can do that. Sometimes you can significanly beat the market, but it's not something you can count on doing consistently. You certainly can't count on doubling the market return, which is what the Ms would have to do with their payroll. That's why you need players who earn significantly less than their talent would warrant in free agency. You get that through club-controlled players. You need them in order to win. Not even the Yankees are an exception to this rule. The Mariners, with less than half the Yanks' payroll, certainly aren't. Obviously that doesn't mean you never trade such players. The Smoak for Lee trade made total sense for Texas. They were a great bet to make the playoffs and make a deep run. But you don't make those moves lightly. You certainly don't do it just to make a statement even when you admittedly don't think the move will significantly improve your odds at contention. And you definitely don't do it for the righthanded part of a platoon who will need to hit like Barry Bonds in his prime to have any impact on your playoff chances. "And please, NOW Cabrera is probably 50X as good as Perez. He's far exceeded anyone's expectations, even the most optimistic." Yes, sometimes it happens, which is why every single smart company that exists does tons of diligence in trying to balance risk and reward. Supposing you make 10 trades that have only 2 outcomes. Outcome 1: the player you give up is 20X more valuable than the player you receive. Outcome 2: the player is worth zero. Every single one of those deals is a bad one, because one time you will get completely burned, even though 90% of them will work out in your favor. And the chance that the Cabrera trade would come back to haunt us were much higher than that. As you no doubt agree, if he was even half as valuable as he is today, the Ms would still have lost that trade. "Sometimes, that happens. There are probably some in Boston who still cry over giving up Moyer for Bragg. However, they can always fell better for getting Lowe and Varitek." This is exactly the point. Over time, every team will make a lot of deals. If you don't strike the right balance between risk and reward, over time you lose. It's really simple. You may think this takes away the human element of baseball, but it's a basic, incontrovertible truth. You make a series of trades that risk too much without getting enough back, you will lose. It's guaranteed. No wiggle room. Now, people who think like you will respond "OMFG PLAYOFFS," but a chance at the postseason is part of the reward. It's factored in. It's really easy to point to a real-world example: I don't think even you will argue that the Ms are in a better position today than they'd be if Bavasi had never made a single deal in which he traded a prospect. Jones, Choo, and Cabrera alone are worth far, far more than the value the team got from Bedard, Perez, Broussard, Vidro, and the rest of the schlubs Bavasi acquired by selling prospects combined (hell, Choo alone has been worth more than all the guys we got back from our club-controlled players). Bavasi didn't just get abnormally unlucky. He made bad moves that failed to strike a good balance between risk and reward. It's not like every prospect he dealt away happened to succeed. Sure, we lost Jones, Cabrera, and Choo, but he also sent out Chris Tillman, Tony Butler, Emiliano Fruto, Chris Snelling, Ryan Ketchner, Aaron Taylor, Aaron Looper, Shawn Nottingham, Gregorio Rosario, Sebastian Boucher, Jair Fernandez, and Cha Seung Baek, among others. The vast majority of the prospects Bavasi traded didn't come back to haunt us at all. And a handful of those guys were higher-regarded at the time they were dealt than Cabrera was. But we still lost. Bigtime. Because the trades were huge overpays. The message isn't "don't ever trade prospects." As always, the guiding principle is simply "don't make stupid moves." Cabrera for Perez was a stupid move. It was a stupid move when it was made, I'd still be calling it a stupid move today if Cabrera had never played a MLB game in his life (much like Snelling and Fruto for Vidro was a stupid move, even though it didn't hurt us). I'd say Bavasi was the idiot at the poker table who keeps chasing the inside straight, but the analogy doesn't hold because at least when you hit the inside straight you're pretty sure you're gonna win. He was more like the idiot who hits a pair of 2's on the flop and will call any bet no matter how high hoping to pair his 7. |
| 71. By: slamcactus on 05-26-2011 19:21:54 Well, actually the Vidro deal hurt us a little. There was a pretty big opportunity cost to plugging his .718 OPS into the lineup everyday as the DH when we could have looked to fill the spot with an actual productive hitter. |
| 72. By: rjfrik on 05-26-2011 19:38:28 "I'm not sure if you're saying this in order to cause further friction with edman or if you honestly believe it... It seems some here argue the exact opposite of edman just to argue because they would rather take the opposite stance than him no matter what the subject is even if they don't necessarily agree with what they are saying." Baseballman. There are two sides to every coin. And in this case, the roles are more often then not, reversed. Ed likes to stand by his own thoughts when it comes to the M's and he is most often in the majority. The rest of us give our due diligence to explain to Edman the reasoning behind our thoughts only to get that reasoning stepped on. That is the primary reason behind the vitriol towards Edman. Nothing more nothing less. |
| 73. By: rjfrik on 05-26-2011 19:47:02 "But that's kind of the point. It's not a terrible trade because Cabrera exceeded everyone's expectations, it was a terrible trade at the moment it was made." THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is the entire point of the topic. The trade was flat out horrible and even if Cabrera never played more then a season or two as a part time utility player the Indians would of still won. Perez was THAT BAD! In the article that started all this back and forth Bavasi even admits it. He claims the only reason he acquired Perez was to "send a message that the club was serious about winning" Are you fucking kidding me. That's how you send the message, to acquire Perez? And the major problem with the deal is that he acted alone never inquiring with his scouting director Bob Engle about the trade. I mean Bavasi even calls himself a fucking idiot! "Bob was really upset as the year went on and Eduardo sat,'' Bavasi said. "As opposed to the Choo deal, I thought, 'The GM of this Seattle club is a f---ing idiot." I don't know how much more cut and dry a topic can be. When it's coming from the horses mouth himself. |
| 74. By: rjfrik on 05-26-2011 19:51:44 Meant to say on 72. that he is most often then not in the minority not majority. My bad. |
| 75. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 20:12:09 Will someone please kill "The Ghost of Trades Past"....so that some can move on to the present? |
| 76. By: Blowgun7 on 05-26-2011 20:53:21 Walker is throwing another good game tonight. He and Paxton are looking real strong |
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 |