Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: PHOTOS: Mike Moser's Dunk Face Is Spectacular

So, Okay

I'm basically at the point right now where I'm treating the Bedard trade as an inevitability. I'm convinced that, before long, Erik Bedard will be a Mariner, and Adam Jones, George Sherrill, and some other people will not. I don't have an inside source leading me in one direction or the other, but at least this way, if it happens, I'll be prepared, and if it doesn't, I'll be ecstatic. That's how the experienced loser deals with dejection.

Obviously, this trade is all the rage. Every Mariner fan with an Internet connection is talking about it, and it's been analyzed and evaluated from every angle imaginable. There is little to say about this deal that hasn't already been said, which is kind of remarkable considering it hasn't happened yet. The Mariner community is nothing if not thorough.

With that in mind, there's one thing that's bothering me in a lot of the current discussion. It's not that some people are underselling the impact of defense - that's pretty much always the case. It's not that some people are willing to sacrifice a chunk of the future to win now - that's understandable. And it's not that some people are ignoring the value of Jones' low salary - it's tough to make people care about money when all you see are the players on the field.

It's the fascination that some people have with labels. Bedard, the #1 ace pitcher. Jones, the average corner bat. Sherrill, the LOOGY. And so on and so forth. A typical argument will be that "Bedard is a #1 ace pitcher, and there aren't many of those around, so you have to seize the opportunity to get one while you can."

This point (or some variation thereof) is being repeated everywhere as justification for making the trade. And if you just give it a casual glance, it makes sense - #1 starters are rare, and therefore extraordinarily valuable, because whatever you trade to get one is more easy to replace than the pitcher himself, who has few peers. In a way, this is sort of the whole basis of the stars and scrubs approach to roster management.

Well, for one thing, while #1 pitchers are indeed incredibly rare, so are highly talented outfielders under cheap team control for the next six years. Right now, Adam Jones has fewer comparables than Erik Bedard.

But more importantly, let's drop the labels entirely. Yes, Erik Bedard is a #1 pitcher. That's great. Just don't let that fact cloud your judgment.

Every single player in baseball can be described by two values - the number of runs he contributes to his team, and how much he costs. Every single one. There's no need for labels when it comes to serious analysis. Instead of saying something like "Erik Bedard is valuable because he's an ace," it's better to say "Erik Bedard is valuable because he's x runs better than (other pitcher), and won't cost that much in terms of money." It paints a more accurate and specific picture that makes for easier evaluation than trying to navigate between a bunch of flattering, imprecise adjectives.

In the case of the current Mariners, you can't just rationalize a trade for Bedard by saying that he's an ace, and that we need an ace something terrible. You need to work with the numbers. Let's forget about salary for a moment. Bedard is likely to be, I dunno, anywhere between 30-40 (edit: 40-50) runs better than whoever else we'd end up plugging into that final rotation spot. That's a huge improvement in the team's overall run differential, one that would make us a handful of wins better as a team.

Now subtract from that total of 40-50 however many runs you think we lose going from Sherrill to somebody else. Then subtract however many runs you think we lose going from Jones to another RF at the plate (if any). Finally, subtract however many runs you think we lose going from Jones to another RF in the field. What number are you left with?

In order to properly evaluate this trade, you need to look at three things:

(1) the size of that number in 2008 and, if you're feeling adventurous, 2009 (the improvement in run differential)
(2) how much closer that brings us to the upper tier of the AL
(3) whether an improvement of that magnitude is worth giving up six years of Jones, four years of Sherrill, and six years of whoever else you give up

I'll let you make up your own mind about what you'd prefer to have happen, but if you want to analyze this trade, that's how you have to look at it. Any other approach, particularly one that draws heavily upon the appeal of having Bedard/Felix at the front, is incomplete. Yes, that would be an awesome pair to have. But would it be awesome enough to justify the expense?

My personal belief is that, no, it wouldn't. If we were about five wins better or so, in a position where adding Bedard could put us over the top, then yeah, it'd make sense to overpay. But I don't think we're there, not yet, not without an inordinate number of good bounces going in our favor. And I think we're unlikely to get there in the next few years unless we hang on to the very talent that we're on the verge of trading away.

Comment 191 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Aces
I don't get the "Gotta have a #1 starter" argument.  Never have, never will.  The only time that label matters is on Opening Day; the rest of the time, it's just five guys out there pitching.  Sure, some are better than others, and I want the M's to get the best pitcher they can, but the fact that so many people are fixated on whether the M's "get an ace" scares me, especially if it costs a significant chunk of the farm to do so.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 14, 2008 5:15 PM PST reply actions  

That reminds me
of the mantra of the last couple years where the M's absolutely needed a middle of the order lefty bat to fit Safeco....

by MfaninAlaska on Jan 14, 2008 5:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Having a legit #1 is necessary
when you reach the playoffs. But for now it would make a lot more sense for the M's to worry about making it that far to begin with.

by Katal LM on Jan 14, 2008 5:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah
Bedard/Felix (if Felix finally goes nuts like we hope) would be dynamite in October. But I don't think we're really in a position where we can be planning for that quite yet.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 14, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions  

Slightly disagree
Having two very good pitchers is necessary in the playoffs.  Whether those two pitchers are "aces" or just guys on hot streaks (Hello 2007 Rockies!) is almost immaterial.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 14, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions  

true dat
but it's hard to count on anyone going on a hot streak at just the right time. At least you (probably) know what you're getting with an ace.

by Katal LM on Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM PST up reply actions  

CC Sabathia
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 14, 2008 5:26 PM PST up reply actions  

why do the o's demanding sherrill
why would they demand a 30 year old reliever when they are trying to rebuild. I can understand wanting him if he was young but how is he gonna help them a few years from now. On sherrill being in the deal i dont mind him, he wasnt very good in the second half so maybe hitters are finally catching up to him and the thing about relievers is except for the top relievers like putz, papelbon etc... most relievers change how good they are from year to year, alot of relievers are awesome one year and suck the next for example scott linebrink he was awesome last year and was not very good this year. The padres except for hoffman get new relievers every year and they are always awesome like heath bell he sucked on the mets but was dominant this year.

by rturk89 on Jan 14, 2008 5:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Just because they are rebuilding, doesn't
mean they won't take a good reliever when they can. Sherrill instantly becomes their best reliever and probably their closer by default.

And yeah, he wasn't as good in the 2nd half as he was the first half, but he was still pretty good overall, not to mention we're talking about 17 innings here.

These pretzels....are making me thirsty!

by Goose on Jan 14, 2008 5:51 PM PST up reply actions  

the fact
that mclaren never uses him makes me not really care if he is in the trade because hes still not gonna use him

by rturk89 on Jan 14, 2008 5:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Manager usage isn't a good excuse
for including or not including him in the trade.

But regardless, he is the most expandable part of the package, I will agree.

These pretzels....are making me thirsty!

by Goose on Jan 14, 2008 5:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Just found out why the o's want sherrill
over at dov an o's insider said they want sherril because they intend to then flip him or jamie walker to the braves for Brent Lillibridge. Now it makes sense why they want sherrill.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 1:19 AM PST up reply actions  

Good lefty relievers
are worth a lot in July. I'm sure they want him just to flip him for more prospects.

by PetRock on Jan 14, 2008 9:32 PM PST up reply actions  

just found out why o's want sherrill
over at dov an o's insider said they want sherril because they intend to then flip him or jamie walker to the braves for Brent Lillibridge. Now it makes sense why they want sherrill.

by rturk89 on Jan 14, 2008 11:56 PM PST up reply actions  

I read this.
It was in a comment by some random commenter who said "the O's Insiders are saying..." Meaning - The Orioles blogs, not insiders. Unless I'm an insider.

Oh my god... I'm an insider. The insiders are saying  Mike Morse + Vidro for Bedard!

Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 15, 2008 12:25 AM PST up reply actions  

it makes sense though
as to why they would demand sherrill

by rturk89 on Jan 15, 2008 12:35 AM PST up reply actions  

just found out why o's want sherrill
over at dov an o's insider said they want sherril because they intend to then flip him or jamie walker to the braves for Brent Lillibridge. Now it makes sense why they want sherrill.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 1:20 AM PST up reply actions  

A lot of things make sense.
Doesn't make them true.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 15, 2008 8:45 PM PST up reply actions  

just found out why o's want sherrill
over at dov an o's insider said they want sherril because they intend to then flip him or jamie walker to the braves for Brent Lillibridge. Now it makes sense why they want sherrill.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 1:20 AM PST up reply actions  

An ace
To me, an ace isn't just the guy who pitches on the first fifth day.  An ace is your so-called stopper, the guy everyone expects to win or the other teams expect to lose to.  Look at RJ and what kind of an impact he had on our club for years....look at Moyer, or even Freddy.  Having a young kid like Felix who, in my estimation, should be ready to mature any day and become that next unstoppable, unhittable ace, and package him with a second guy who we can rely on to win 80% of his starts, relieves most of the pressure off of Felix.

 Imagine where he was last year when Ho and Reefer Jaw would come off of two TERRIBLE outings where we overused our bullpen to attempt to save the day.  Felix gets to his start and suddenly,he has a ton of pressure to win because no one else has and if he doesn't, who will.  Then, he HAS to go at least 7 or 8 innings (or maybe until his arm falls off) because there is no bullpen behind him.

Imagine 2008, a guy like Bedard comes in and suddenly becomes the ace.  He gets the matchup with the other team's unstoppable force.  Felix slides into the #2 spot and gets matched up with another team's #2.  Granted nowadays, most teams have a spectacular 1-2 punch, and we would now be on an even playing field with them.  We play Boston in a 3 game series and now instead of it being Felix-Silva-Batista vs. Beckett-Schilling-Matsuzaka its now Bedard-Felix-Silva vs. Beckett, Schiling and Dice-K.  I like those odds MUCH better.

To me adding a pitcher like Bedard would make Felix become that much better.  I just wish we wouldn't have to mortgage the farm for him.

by tkballer22 on Jan 14, 2008 6:26 PM PST up reply actions  

i cant imagine
us losing 8 games in a row 4 times with bedard and felix

by rturk89 on Jan 14, 2008 6:31 PM PST up reply actions  

just found out why o's want sherrill
over at dov an o's insider said they want sherril because they intend to then flip him or jamie walker to the braves for Brent Lillibridge. Now it makes sense why they want sherrill.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 1:21 AM PST up reply actions  

I hate intangibles.
I caution to even write this, because its opening the door to irrational, intangible benefit-based arguments about player value that cannot be measured in any way whatsoever.

That being said, the only thing I feel good about for this trade is the fact that Bedard might be so good, that he might be able to pull the Mariners out of their typical 2-3 times a season tailspins where they can't win despite themselves.

I am fully aware of how useless it is to think of Winning and particular Pitchers, that good pitching is basically worthless without good defense and hitting and everything else we read every day on USSM and LL.  Oh yeah, and how stupid the FO is by thinking slumps are prevented by a Veteran Mentality and Chemistry.

I do believe there is a human factor to the game that is impossible to ignore, and I think it's a benefit to the other sides of the equation (defense, and especially offense) to have someone that can just go out and pitch better than almost anyone else.

Now, do I believe that Jones is worth it? No, I'd rather have 6 years of a good, young, athletic corner OF that  might develop into a good OPS guy.  But if it does happen, I am looking forward to watching a guy that can just pitch-- better than anyone else in a Mariners' uniform since Randy Johnson (I might be wrong on that one, but I am too tired to jog my memory).

by batura on Jan 14, 2008 5:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Your last paragraph sums it up for me
I don't want this to happen, but since it feels like it probably will, at least we get to watch Erik Bedard.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 14, 2008 9:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Mariners
Well, the Mariners pretty much forget about every possible player strategy known to man-- especially the one where you have a really shitty 5th man in the rotation that you skip when there is an off day.

by batura on Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM PST up reply actions  

/DOV
You're forgetting that Bedard is the new Greg Maddux. You're also forgetting that the Mariners once had a hyped OF prospect named Jose Cruz Jr., and he ultimately failed to live up to his hype, so Jones will too. And that Greg Sherrill is easily replaceable. We should package Jones and Sherrill with Triunfel (worthless) and Tillman (he'll never make it), but not Morrow (the next Nolan Ryan), and win the 2008 pennant!

/end_Dov

by Katal LM on Jan 14, 2008 5:19 PM PST reply actions  

You are forgetting:
Oh and Dave Cameron is a poopyhead.

/end_Dov

These pretzels....are making me thirsty!

by Goose on Jan 14, 2008 5:35 PM PST up reply actions  

I... I'm torn
I know its a terrible idea to send Jones away, but the thought of Washburn being the 5th best starter in our rotation makes me drool.

The loss of Sherrill I think is negligible, as EOF and RRS can pick up the slack pretty well. Also, that rotation should considerably lighten the load on the bullpen, so it may actually become better than last year's, especially come August.

Thinking about it more, I realize I can convince myself that both are pretty attractive options. Its like this. You throw a party, and you get wasted very early (this always happens to me when I host). You know that later that night your smoking hot coworker you've been flirting with is gonna show. But that's later and this is now. And now your roommates older sister (who is meh) is all over your jock and talking dirty. Of course, it is preferable to keep your eyes on the prize and wait. However, if the choice were taken our of your hands and given to a nice but misguided bald man with an elongated cranium, and you suddenly find that you're already in bed with the sister, you're not giong to be pretty happy just the same. there's a georgian saying - you can't argue with a naked woman.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 14, 2008 6:08 PM PST reply actions  

Oh my...
Is there an award for "Best Parable?"

If there is, you just won it.

by Wilder83 on Jan 14, 2008 6:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Couldnt said it better myself
Even if I owned Lookout Landing.

Well done, sir. Have yourself a beer.

by Slica on Jan 14, 2008 6:19 PM PST reply actions  

FWIW, I went through the steps
Now subtract from that total of 30-40 however many runs you think we lose going from Sherrill to somebody else. Then subtract however many runs you think we lose going from Jones to another RF at the plate (if any). Finally, subtract however many runs you think we lose going from Jones to another RF in the field. What number are you left with?

40 - 20 (weighted runs compared to J. Affeldt) - 10 (BAT: Jones to Wlad) - 12.5 (GLOVE: Jones to Wlad)

=

-2.5 runs

by Matthew on Jan 14, 2008 6:43 PM PST reply actions  

BTW, this surprised me
I figured it would be a low improvement (see my first comment), but I had no idea the dropoff from Sherrill would be so heavy. And Affeldt wasn't even bad last year!

by Matthew on Jan 14, 2008 6:50 PM PST up reply actions  

And naturally, I screwed it up trying to do
a quick calc. Relied on the wrong stat for pitching. Going by straight runs allowed and applying leverage, the drop off from Sherrill to Affeldt would be 12 runs, not 20.

So +5.5 runs total

by Matthew on Jan 14, 2008 6:55 PM PST up reply actions  

I used Sherrill's career LI
since I figured that was the best way to project '08 in 10 seconds or less. It's been fairly stable.

by Matthew on Jan 14, 2008 11:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Heh. Suck.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 14, 2008 6:52 PM PST up reply actions  

does this take into account innings pitched?
Say RRS rounds out the rotation if we dont make the trade. He probably gives you 1-2 innings less per start than Bedard. So that means the bullpen pitches more, which means guys at the back of the bullpen pitch more, which costs you runs.

I'm thinking this is probably factored into your calculations, but I wasn't sure.

by Zack on Jan 14, 2008 10:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Thank you John Hickey.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/archives/129461.asp
I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not...

by TIF @ Lookout Landing on Jan 14, 2008 8:35 PM PST reply actions  

Erik Bedard
I've been stuck on inevitable for quite some time now.

I'm leaning towards "Go get Bedard" but not for reasons most people suggest.

In fact, my reason for getting him is kinda stupid.  Some people want him to provide that "1,2 punch" with him and Felix.  Some people want him because the guys that are being traded "are just prospects".

Why do I want him?  Because it would be considered a success for this low-grade front office.  Let's face it, as long as we have the front office that we have, we're not going to see the Mariners become an Indians, Athletics, Tigers, Red Sox, or even Yankees type team anytime soon.  These folks have a love for veterans and track-records even if said veterans may not be very good.

I stared off the offseason not wanting to get Bedard/Santana.  What changed my mind?  The direction this team was obviously heading in.  They think they can win.  Despite the availability of stopgap options on the market we decided to blow $48 million on Carlos Silva for four years.  We can be happen to retain Adam Jones but then we're also stuck with Carlos Silva and our backend being HoRam or Brandon Morrow.  NOT that putting up with that nonsense while keeping Adam Jones is a bad thing mind you.

I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be excited if we landed Bedard.  We're going to give up a lot and it's going to hurt.  People who don't think this are kidding themselves.  Also, by accepting this route, I believe we have two chances to win big...2008 and 2009.  After that, though, comes the consequence.  Oakland gets better, Texas gets stronger, and we start collapsing under the weight of the deals we'll have in place at the time.  Next thing we know, we're back in last place again with no Adam Jones and whomever else we give up.

Is that going to be worth the risk?  Depends.  Right now, I'm under the impression that based on the FO's line of thinking we're going to be heading back down the crapper eventually anyhow.  That makes it kind of easier to deal with.  Then again, watching Astrubal Cabrera contribute to the post season while Eduardo Perez does commentary on Baseball Tonight kinda stung.  Can I really stomach seeing Adam Jones tear it up in another uniform?  Or worse, watch him take Mariner pitching to the cleaners like Vlad does?

Basically, I want to get Erik Bedard because our FO is stupid.  They're at least going after something valuable this time.  Honestly, I'd pick a well-built team over this any day of the week.  Man, I wish we had a smart FO. :|

by ThundaPC on Jan 14, 2008 9:13 PM PST reply actions  

Hey, I'm all for Bedard
as long as it doesn't cost us Jones or Tuinfel.

Buy yeah, at least they aren't targeting a guy like Pavano '04.

"Goddamn Romans. Sure know how to make a ... drum room." --Matt Cameron

by JI on Jan 14, 2008 9:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Jones - Bedard
Bedard is an underappreciated pitcher. This would be a great move for the M's.

Jones will probably be a great player, but Bedard will help the Mariners more right now AND in the next couple of years, I think.

If there's a trigger, the front office should pull it now.

ScoutingBook: Top Baseball Prospects, Closers and more.

by scoutingbook on Jan 14, 2008 9:26 PM PST reply actions  

The front office has pulled enough triggers
and in so doing made me want to pull one of my own.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 14, 2008 9:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Is this another sock puppet?
Next, tell us all about how pitching and defense wins championships!

Seriously, have you read any of the diaries?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 14, 2008 9:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Geez
I have to stop reading comments from the Times (Baker's argument) and PI (Jones is back in the lineup thread).

Im baffled at how clueless people are.

I could be ok letting Jones go for Bedard if he were guaranteed to stay. I see the argument 'how often do the Ms get a frontline pitcher like this'?. They conveniently forget Bedard is virtually a lock to leave in two years...how often do we retain frontline pitchers?.

Bedard is an awesome pitcher. Im still not putting him as high (Santana/Peavy high) as everyone else until he has another awesome year. Just me being stingy.

But even the great Bedard will see double after double next year wiith our outfield defense. It felt like we gave up 3-5 doubles a game.

by Slica on Jan 14, 2008 9:26 PM PST reply actions  

you know, im actually excited about this trade
not because we're giving up adam jones (who i genuinely believe is going to be a special player - hell his floor is probably mike cameron, and mike cameron was/is a hell of a player).

of course i think the rumored packages are terrible. obviously, you cant know for sure what youve got with prospects, especially one as young as triunfel, but as we've said so many times on this board, you have at least have a decent educated guess always.

back to the subject of my comment, if erik bedard ends up in a mariner uniform, regardless of the cost, i will be damn excited to watch him on the hill for us. it goes against all rhyme or reason, but damn do i want to watch a guy like erik bedard pitch for the Ms

by seattlebruin on Jan 14, 2008 9:35 PM PST reply actions  

also,
it seems logical that having bedard and silva would put less stress on the bullpen then last year, and help avoid last years meltdown. perhaps we can find a few more runs saved there as well.

by seattlebruin on Jan 14, 2008 9:54 PM PST reply actions  

nobody wants to hear this arguement
because it goes against their credo of "save the youngsters!"

In reality, Bedard in the starting rotation will bump this team upto major contender status, and the Angels will have something real to deal with.

If/when the M's get into the playoffs, they will be a tough team to beat with Bedard/Felix 1-2 punch.

The trade now sounds like Morrow or Tillman, Jones, and GS52.

I would absolutely pull the trigger on this, especially if we can sign Bedard to more years.

This board (yes I'm calling it a board, so eat me) will just have to deal with the poor prospects of watching Bedard and Felix pitch back to back ohhh the horror! MORONS

We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 7:39 AM PST up reply actions  

I too would enjoy such a scenario
The pup that laughs when you're down on your luck.

by Scrappy the Scapegoat on Jan 15, 2008 7:46 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm immensely curious...
How the fuck do you type without a functioning brain?

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 7:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Just found out why o's want sherrill
over at dov an o's insider said they want sherril because they intend to then flip him or jamie walker to the braves for Brent Lillibridge. Now it makes sense why they want sherrill.
We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 7:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Nope
I Heart Silva wins this one.

by johnbai on Jan 15, 2008 9:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Hush, you
Or we'll no longer be best friends.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 9:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Oh Graham
Please know that "I Heart Silva" can never replace you in my life. I just have to give props when people earn them.

by johnbai on Jan 15, 2008 10:13 AM PST up reply actions  

Fine, fine
I'd miss you too much if we weren't BFF anyway.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 10:13 AM PST up reply actions  

I think you mean
"Hi, it's Larvae!"
Ill Ligitamus Non Carberendum

by PositivePaul on Jan 15, 2008 10:23 AM PST up reply actions  

Do you honestly think
that adding Bedard and making no other moves will allow the M's to be a "major contender"?  Adding one stud pitcher will do nothing to put the M's on a level playing field with NYY/BOS/CLE - it just adds a great pitcher to a mediocre team.  
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 7:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Don't bother, pdb
Just abuse him for a little while and wait for the banhammer of mightiness to strike him down.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 8:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Your arguement lack merit
They always have Graham Cracker.
We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 8:03 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm glad that
My arguments[sic] have Graham Crackers[sic]. God knows I wouldn't want them to go hungry.

I'll still take any of my arguments[sic] over your (however amusing) spasms of retardity.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 8:08 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm going to start a punk band
and call it Spasms of Retardity.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions  

I prefer honey to vinegar
until the honey stops working, that is - then the vinegar gets poured straight into the eyeballs.  metaphorically speaking, of course.

I can't remember - why does it make sense for the O's to ask for Sherrill again?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 8:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Something about flipping him to the Braves
For Brent Lillibridge?

In reality, they want Sherrill because he's a cost controlled, highly effective reliever and they have a bullpen fetish, largely driven by their complete inability to build one despite investing crazy amounts of money.

But hey, random stories about Braves farmhands work too.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions  

I've decided my life will be more fun
because from now on I'm just going to post random rumors that I heard somewhere as if they were a dead cert.  It makes things a lot simpler.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 8:30 AM PST up reply actions  

I heard that one somewhere
so it's gotta be true.  I think, though, in deference to my perpetual Seattle fandom, all my rumors will involve Ken Griffey Jr., in some form - at least that way I'll always have a place on the PI message boards...
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 8:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Many Rumors turn out to be false
remember Hargrove was absolutely gone after the end of the season last year?

I'm not defending DOV but remember alot of people hear things as fact that turn out not to actually happen.

by MfaninAlaska on Jan 15, 2008 9:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Which is exactly my point
Rumors are stupid, and spreading them around like wildfire, across multiple threads like rturk86 does, doesn't help anybody.  

DOV is by no means the only offender here, we all do it to an extent - I'm just getting tired of the inanity of it all.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 9:39 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree
but rumors aren't going to go away its a way for people to try and elevate themselves above the norm by either knowing something everyone else doesn't, or by being the first to post something they've heard to have their message be the center of attention.

Reporters do this all the time, and many fans do it as well.

by MfaninAlaska on Jan 15, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions  

It wasn't even a rumor.
It was a comment by a random person in the DOV comment threads, which resemble Geoff Baker blog comment logic. It's literally got less worth than a rumor, if that's possible.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 15, 2008 10:06 AM PST up reply actions  

But if it's posted enough times
in enough different places, it's gotta be true, right?
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 10:08 AM PST up reply actions  

I did
but it was drowned out by the Griffey to the M's rumor involving a three-way deal with the Mets where the M's end up with Griffey and Reyes.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2008 10:17 AM PST up reply actions  

I heard the Giants want Bloomquist
But aren't yet willing to give up Matt Cain unless the Mariners throw in one of our best former prospects with major league experience, like Mike Morse or Jeremy Reed. A Giants insider, though, said they may be looking for a catcher and that Jaime Burke may be a nice throw in to sweeten the deal.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 15, 2008 10:20 AM PST up reply actions  

oh yeah?
"it just adds a great pitcher to a mediocre team"

That is your opinion. Our bullpen is great, our rotation would be great. Our lineup will be average to above-average.

You can go far with an average lineup/defense and an outstanding pitching staff.

We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 8:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Speaking of opinions
Please explain how our lineup will be average to above-average.  I would love to see some analysis that brought you to this conclusion.

by Sec 108 on Jan 15, 2008 8:09 AM PST up reply actions  

Strike that, our offense could be GOOD
and they will most certainly be above average.

Ichiro - former MVP
Vidro/Clement - Vidro is underrated here, seriously
Ibanez - great lefty fit for Safeco
Sexson - will bounce back
Beltre - steady power bat
Johjima - great hitter for a catcher
Wlad/Luis Gonzalez - wildcards
Yuni - .280-.290 hitter
Lopez - former All Star, should bounce back

Considering Lopez and Sexson both had down years, Wlad might reproduce Guillen's numbers, and Yuni continues to improve year to year, we could very well have a great team on our hands.

Only thing that will most certainly be average/above average is our defense. Ichiro, Lopez, Beltre, Johjima, Yuni (he cant produce last year's numbers) are all above average defensively. Wlad/L-Gon, Ibanez, and Sexson are all below average. One could even argue that Sexson is merely average.

We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 8:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Please, lend me some pessimism
God knows this BOARD doesn't get enough of that!

I'm going with my optomistic point of view for right now.

We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 8:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Sexson is not average
he might be the worst defensive 1B in baseball.

If we trade Jones and replace him with Wlad or Gonzalez, our defense will be a problem again (albeit to a slightly lesser extent than last year).

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2008 8:13 AM PST up reply actions  

According to the defense through PMR
Sexson is not even near the bottom of the list defensively.
We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 8:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Is this your first post
In which you've spelled every word correctly?

Well done.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2008 8:18 AM PST up reply actions  

Check previous seasons
And UZR thinks he's -9 per year between 2003-2007.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2008 8:23 AM PST up reply actions  

OK he sucks
but he's tall, so he can reach those high throws and save errors that way!

sarcasm off

We WANT Silva, damn it!

by I Heart Silva on Jan 15, 2008 10:04 PM PST up reply actions  

The thing about the #1 SP argument
goes back to the stars/scrubs approach of roster building.  One SP who is + 30 runs is better than an OF and SP who are both +15 runs because you have a finite roster and you may be able to find an OF who is better than average.  Trading Jones and Sherril appears to be close to a wash when you look at the +/- runs but if you are able to find a above average RP and OF then you come out better in the end.  I'm pretty sure one of our new RP will be above average and maybe something like a platoon of Wlad/Reed could replace Jones.

I am not favoring the trade at all but this is the arguement and it has some credibility kinda like trading Soriano for Ramirez made some sense based on a RP for a SP who was a groundball pitcher.  The basic theory of trading and OF and RP for a #1 SP has credibility but I just don't think it helps us in this case.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 14, 2008 10:35 PM PST reply actions  

Just My Quick Psychology FYI
One of the signs of intelligence is the ability to delay gratification in order to receive a greater reward (eg, you can have this five dollar bill now, or you can wait 3 days and get 15). Something to mull over.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 14, 2008 11:38 PM PST reply actions  

Do we have Jones for six more years?
Cot's shows him with an MLB service time of "0.139" years.

So, according to Cot's, that's not a full year, right? The CBA defines a full year as 172 days, right? So we DO have him for six more years?

I think you're right, Jeff, but I just wanted to check. This stuff always confuses me.

by Teej on Jan 15, 2008 1:28 AM PST reply actions  

I like this stalemate...
It shows that if Bavasi was going to cave, he would've already done so.  Baltimore isn't getting what they want, and Bavasi isn't gutting the farm system.  

Ultimately, both sides are risking a lot -- I think there's a potential fit (and it doesn't include Jones), but the other GMs aren't exactly offering the sun, moon, stars AND three galaxies that the O's are asking for Bedard either...

Ill Ligitamus Non Carberendum

by PositivePaul on Jan 15, 2008 3:25 PM PST reply actions  

So anybody know what our bullpen will look like?
RP
Putz
Sherril?
Green
Morrow
O'Flaherty
White
RRS
-- (probably cutoff)
Huber
Mickolio
Rhodes
Reitsma

Backup SP
Feierabend
Rohrbaugh
HoRam
Dickey
Baek

I'd say we are in pretty good shape.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2008 7:05 PM PST reply actions  

probably Lowe in place of White
man that backup SP sucks nuts. Not one guy there who can miss bats.

by Matthew on Jan 15, 2008 7:20 PM PST up reply actions  

It keeps him fresh for September!
You know whose arms don't accumulate too much wear and tear? Injured guys'.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions  

So....
you're saying we should injure Felix? Right; Johnson!

by Matthew on Jan 15, 2008 7:59 PM PST up reply actions  

RRS can miss bats
unfortunately, his minor league record suggests he can miss the plate too.

by G_ on Jan 15, 2008 8:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Prospect Insider likes White.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 15, 2008 8:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I've read similar sentiments elsewhere.
Does he have any plus pitches?
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 15, 2008 8:52 PM PST up reply actions  

When he's commanding it
he has a pretty solid sinking fastball.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Thats about it though right?
Sounds like #4 SP peak type of guy probalby right?

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2008 9:00 PM PST up reply actions  

He still has time to fill out his repertoire
but yeah, he's a pretty low-ceiling starter guy long term.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2008 9:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Just for fun
White's GB% at the 5 levels he pitched this year:

AZL   68% (10.1 IP)
A-   100% (5.0 IP)
AAA   49% (10.2 IP)
MLB   53% (35.1 IP)
Wint  86% (8.1 IP)

by G_ on Jan 15, 2008 9:07 PM PST up reply actions  

He pitched in 46 innings in winter league ball
and according to MiLB had a 1.93GB ratio.

The sinking fastball/sinker thing is a damned nice weapon when it's this extreme.

by marc w on Jan 16, 2008 11:12 AM PST up reply actions  

even better
firstinning.com must not have updated the winter league stats for awhile.

by G_ on Jan 16, 2008 11:57 AM PST up reply actions  

True. Forgot about Lowe. I don't count on it.
Backup SP suck by definition.  That's why they aren't in the rotation.  Overall though I think our depth is a plus because you can just throw in the hot hand.  The thing I'm not sure of is where all these guys pitch during the year unless AAA goes to a larger rotation.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2008 7:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Ho Ram was the backup SP
Before we traded Jesus for him and let him start a shit ton of games this year.
Jose Vidro (DH - Ms) was arrested today in an Idaho Bathroom for having a wide stance and sucking.

by CapSea on Jan 15, 2008 8:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Also
Chris Shelton or Richie Sexson?  Ok, Sexson is better than that.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2008 8:48 PM PST reply actions  

Another random note
How'd Mo Vaughn beat out Edgar for the MVP in 1995.  Its been a while but I don't see why it'd be a competition at all.  I guess Mo had more RBIs and HRs.  Man, I think voters have gotten a lot smarter since then cause I doubt that would happen today.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2008 10:03 PM PST reply actions  

Albert Belle shoulda beat out Vaughn too
Hell Vaughn probably wasn't even the MVP of his team.  Valentin probably should have beat him out.  Mo might not have deserved to be in the top 10 that year in the AL.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2008 10:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Why now?
(first time poster - visiting from DOV)

While much of Jeff's argument makes sense, the reality is that the Ms ALREADY made the decision that NOW is the time to try and win.  They committed to that course the day they inked the Ichiro contract.  If you want to rebuild for 3-years-from-now, then you TRADE Ichiro for specs, you don't sign him long-term, to become your pricey Bagwell or Bonds that PREVENTS you from having the cash to fill that last critical spot or two when the specs do arrive.

=

As for the 5-minute analysis of where the Ms stand:

2007 Ms finished with a 104 OPS+, (that's above average, btw).  Guillen posted a 116 OPS+, but his career average is only 101.  Moreover, the EASIEST position in baseball to find adequate offensive production is corner OF.  Wlad does not HAVE to be the replacement for Guillen.  Lofton and Trot Nixon are on the market, and both have career OPS figures significantly higher than Guillen's.  And with a minor league career OPS of .862, a 50 point dip moving to the bigs STILL returns basically the same offense as 2007, (hoping for a better season from Sexson).

==

The contention that Bedard would be a "30-40" run gain for the club, however, is the arena where I blink.

In 2007, HoRam surrendered 78-ER (86 total) in 98 innings.  Currently, he is still positioned to be the #5 starter, and HE is the production Bedard is likely to replace.

Bedard allowed 64-ER (66 total) in 182 IPs.  You normalize both to 200 innings, and you're looking at closer to an 80-run swing in the Ms favor.

Of course, many people are decrying 2007 as a career year for Bedard, (while accepting Jones' AAA 2007 as gospel truth of impending HoF status).  Well, let's look at Bedard in 2006, compared to HoRam * 2:

Bedard 2006 - 196-IP - 82-ER (92 total)
Horam 2007*2 - 196-IP - 156-ER (172 total)

The delta between the two in this comparison is exactly 80 total runs.  

Then, of course, come the potential positive impact on a less-stressed bullpen.  

====

But, Weaver is also replaced by Silva.

Weaver (2007): 101-ER in 146-IP

Weaver+feierbend: 145-ER in 195-IP
Silva (2007) : 94-ER in 202-IP

====

So, the math can paint a picture of the Silva/Bedard upgrade to the rotation being "potentially", a 130-run gain, when compared against 2007.  

Mind you, there are arguments to be made that Silva 'may' not be as significant an upgrade as shown above.  But, I don't think it at all unreasonable to at least START the analysis by comparing the most recent production of the players being discussed.

The reality is that - in 2007, if Bedard had thrown his Baltimore innings for the Ms, while the Horam (and Baek) innings hadn't existed, it is QUITE possible that the Ms would have been in the playoffs.  

The only real question is what kind of hit offensively and defensively the club will take in regards to replacing Guillen.  In truth, corner OF slots are historically the easiest position on the field to replace.  Cleveland showed that when AFTER Nixon and Dellucci both stumbled badly, they went and snagged Lofton.

Calm is contagious

by Firemane on Jan 16, 2008 9:03 AM PST reply actions  

A very quick rebuttal
I think most of the anti-Bedard-trade people will say the same thing:  Mortgaging the M's future by trading away a fat chunk of talented minor leaguers only really makes sense IF you believe that the M's are one starting pitcher away from playoff/WS contention.

And I'm not sure you'll find many believers of that philosophy 'round here - and I don't mean that in a negative way, I just mean that this team has significant enough holes that adding one starting pitcher isn't going to vault the M's past the Boston/NYY/Anaheim/Clevelands of the world.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 16, 2008 9:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Re: Why now?
The thing is, nobody wants to rebuild. This isn't a team that has to be rebuilt. Everybody on the anti-trade wagon wants to win; they just want to win in a way that doesn't do harm to our future chances of winning, because our chances down the road look better than our chances now. Erik Bedard probably doesn't bring us neck and neck with the Angels, let alone the other four monsters in the AL. Faced with that scenario, I think a more appropriate approach would be to tweak the current roster while preserving as much of the current prospect stockpile as you can. Let's not forget that Adam Jones is a critical part of the winning equation both now and down the road.

The offense should be at least league-average regardless of where we go from here, but the key would be replacing Jones' bat + glove with somebody else, and right now there's no one available on his level. Wlad is worse on both fronts, and while Luis Gonzalez might be his equal at the plate in the short-term, his defense is really bad. (There's been no indication that the Mariners are particularly interested in anyone else.) Trade Jones and you're almost certainly going to be considerably worse in RF than you thought you'd be last October.

As for the pitching, the 30-40 run window was calculated based on a 3.2 RA in 200 innings for Bedard, and a 5.0 RA in 200 innings for whatever he'd be replacing (allowing for a little Bedard regression or injury). I do not think the Mariners would honestly enter the season with Ramirez in the rotation (nor do I think he's as bad as his runs allowed last year, for what it's worth). If you think he'd be replacing something more like a 5.5 RA, that's fine, run with that - then he'd be a 50-run improvement over where we currently stand. I don't know why you're normalizing Ramirez's 98 innings to 200. People that bad don't get to throw 200 innings.

Silva obviously makes us a few wins better, although if you're looking to compare him to last year, the baseline should be Weaver + Baek, since that's who took up his innings while he was on the DL. Feierabend took over for Ramirez.

Let's look at it this way - the Mariners, as currently constructed, are an X win team. With Bedard and without Jones/Sherrill/whatever, they're an X+n win team. We're probably pretty close to agreeing on the size of X; where we differ is on the size of n. I don't think it's that big, not big enough to bring us up to LA/NYY/BOS/DET/CLE. Closer, certainly, but not close enough.

----------

Last year's Mariners scored 794 runs and allowed 813, for a Pythagorean W/L of 79-83.

If the offense stays the same and you chop a ton off the RA, knocking it all the way down to 700 (which I find optimistic), they have a Pythagorean W/L of 90-72.

The Angels stood at 90-72 last year and have only gotten better. They're also ditching their worst RA from 2007, and Torii Hunter is an upgrade, albeit an overpaid one.

If adding Erik Bedard still leaves us a few wins behind the Angels in "true talent level", and you have to rely on good fortune to make up the gap, is it a move worth doing? Where do you draw the line between wanting to win now and knowing that you're sacrificing way too much to try and do it?

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 16, 2008 10:22 AM PST up reply actions  

I should add to this
that if you're interested in winning in 2008, Adam Jones is a big piece of the puzzle.

I'd trade pretty much any collection of players in the system (including Morrow) for Bedard, as long as we got to hang on to AJ, because if you're looking to make yourself a legitimate contender in a hurry, you need AJ in right, since the alternatives are worse.

I also wouldn't be opposed to then looking for a better 2B.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 16, 2008 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

DOV
Also says Morrow has been Overpowering in the majors making him clearly more valuable than Adam Jones.

At this point I think you're wasting bytes.

Babies hate me.

by CapSea on Jan 16, 2008 11:23 AM PST up reply actions  

re: better 2B
have you already forgotten the mighty Miguel Cairo?

by Matthew on Jan 16, 2008 3:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Of course Bedard is more than 30-40 runs
Unless I'm misreading it (and considering you're cross posting from DoV I'm not going to read what you have to say very carefully), this is completely ignoring the cost of losing Jones and Sherrill.

And the numbers on the Ramirez-Bedard comparison are wrong. It's ~50 runs.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 16, 2008 10:27 AM PST up reply actions  

The 30-40 run window
was meant to estimate how much better Bedard makes the rotation as currently constructed, now how much better Bedard makes us than last year's rotation. Although in retrospect I probably should've used a 40-50 run window instead.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 16, 2008 10:37 AM PST up reply actions  

I think a 35-45 is probably the most appropriate
And I was commenting on DOV's 80 run figure, not yours, Jeff.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 16, 2008 10:46 AM PST up reply actions  

actually, I'd say 30-50 would be best
the comparison I went with is a replacement-level SP putting up a 6.0 RA (it would probably be lower in SafeCo, but w/e) and Bedard putting up a 4.0 RA (rough 3-year average; it would probably be lower, but again, w/e)

Over 180 innings, that equates to 40 runs.

by Matthew on Jan 16, 2008 10:51 AM PST up reply actions  

my take
  1. No. A) Nobody is saying rebuild for 2011 and B) Comparing Ichiro to Bagwell is dumb and how has Bonds ever prevented the Giants from contending?
  2. Career numbers aren't as good as past-3-years comparisons. We know what OPS+ means. We contend Wlad would suffer a hell of a lot more than a 50 point OPS dip in the majors if he played in '08.
  3. You see how you talked about Wlad not needing to be the replacement for Jones in '08? Try using that same logic here. Comparing against the '07 team isn't nearly as sound as comparing against the '08 team and right now, we slot a replacement-level pitcher in the 5th slot for '08. Horacio Ramirez isn't going to repeat 2007 in 2008.
  4. We've already accepted that Silva is about 40 runs better than what we had last year, that would have moved us from a 79 win team to about an 83 win team.
  5. It's not 2007 anymore. You are right that Silva + Bedard would be a significant upgrade. Nobody argues with that. You are wrong about 130 runs though because you cannot just extrapolate Horacio's performance to a full season. The real number is about 100 runs. But, the story doesn't end there as Jeff said. You have to consider the downgrades as well; Ichiro coming down, Ibanez aging, Johjima aging, The stepdown from Guillen to !Jones. All that adds up.
The whole of our point is that the addition of Bedard (and the loss of Jones et al) does not provide the Mariners with enough of a probability to reach the playoffs in 2008 and 2009 to make it worth sacrificing 15+ years of club controlled player-seasons.

by Matthew on Jan 16, 2008 11:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Replacement vs. actual
Okay, I can understand there are many places where "replacement level" player is a valid comparison.  IMO, this isn't such a case.

My comparison is based on replacing the ACTUAL player, playing in the environment in question.

HoRam with the Ms defense behind him.  He IS currently the Ms #5 starter.  We have already seen what performance he did have in 2007.  And if we are attempting to assess how much the Ms are going to improve, using numbers from 'theorhetical' doesn't seem to get us closer to the truth - but further from it.

Now, my 80 run figure did use Horacio's 2007 numbers, (doubled - which matches innings with Bedard's 2006 numbers).  This doesn't take an advanced degree in math to see.

92-runs allowed by Bedard.
172-runs allowed by HoRam.

That's an 80-run gain, based NOT on Bedard's career 2007, but his 'just pretty good' 2006.

Is defense a concern?  Sure.  In 2006, Baltimore had the 26th ranked DER in baseball.  In 2007, Seattle stood at 27th.  So, this comparison does NOT reward Bedard for the superior Baltimore defense of 2007.  (It does however, penalize him for the extra 50 Ks he managed in 2007).

Additionally, these numbers are NOT park-adjusted, which means HoRam's 7 runs per 9 and Feirabend's 8 per 9 were ASSISTED by the Seattle park.

===

Okay, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the Ms "could" get this theorhetical replacement player.  I would agree with an assessment that said player would likely improve Seattle by 40 runs over last season in runs allowed.  Bedard, however, gets them another 40 runs above THAT.

So, compared to 2007, a "conservative" estimate, (no credit for 2007 career year - no assist by adjusting for park), Bedard is an 80-run gain in run prevention from the ACTUAL runs allowed by Seattle in 2007.

The reason that Bedard is so inherently valuable is because he isn't replacing a #1 starter (or even a #5).  He's replacing a #7 starter, because that's what the Ms had - (and have).

Calm is contagious

by Firemane on Jan 16, 2008 11:33 AM PST reply actions  

I'm unclear
are we talking about how much Bedard improves us from 2007, or are we talking about how much Bedard improves us from where we are at this writing? Because those are two very different quantities.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 16, 2008 11:41 AM PST up reply actions  

It also doesn't take an advanced math
degree to see that taking Horacio's runs allowed in 2007, doubling them and using that figure as the 2008 projection is stupid.

by Matthew on Jan 16, 2008 11:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Also
we only care about the 40 runs Bedard would provide over the replacement-level player. The 40 run improvement/progression from Horacrio+Baek+Weaver+Fear 2007 are meaningless in the discussion because those are going to come anyways with or without Bedard.

by Matthew on Jan 16, 2008 12:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Where were they last year?
Question: If the replacement level player is going to come ANYWAYS, then why did he not come to the Ms during 2007?

Answer: The replacement level player DOES NOT EXIST.  He is a theorhetical mathematical projection.

The Ms are attempting to replace ~350 innings of production in Weaver/HoRam/Baek/Fear.  THAT production was not remotely close to the 6/9 replacement level production that Jeff says he used.

I'm okay with that.  If he's projecting replacement level production for those 350 innings, then he's STARTING his analysis assuming 234 runs allowed in those innings, when the actual 2007 runs allowed were 280.  That means, BEFORE the trade, he's projecting a 47 run improvement for the Ms in runs allowed.

HIS assessment is that Bedard would contribute an ADDITIONAL bonus of 30-40 runs prevented.  I'm not disagreeing with that assessment, (now that I understand it was based on comparison to replacement level).  

Calm is contagious

by Firemane on Jan 16, 2008 1:28 PM PST reply actions  

yeah
for instance, using Graham's tRA*, the foursome should have combined to allow 5.5 runs per 9 for their 367.3 innings.

Hey look! Replacement-level! (skosh better actually)

by Matthew on Jan 16, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Nice try, thanks for playing
Question: If the replacement level player is going to come ANYWAYS, then why did he not come to the Ms during 2007?

Bad GM decisions.  Replacement-level players are not overpriced free agents, nor are they hot prospects.  They are the 19th through 25th man on most MLB rosters.  They are Emil Brown.

Answer: The replacement level player DOES NOT EXIST.  He is a theorhetical mathematical projection.

The replacement level player is EVERYWHERE.  That's the point.

I'm not disagreeing with that assessment, (now that I understand it was based on comparison to replacement level).

So, you utterly dismiss the concept above, then use that same dismissed concept to agree with a previous point?  Really?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 16, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions  

re: Nice try, thanks for playing
is this necessary?

Seriously, I have no idea why THIS issue out of the myriad issue that separate the various blogs, or the blogs and the front office, has made EVERYONE lose their shit.

I don't get it.  

by marc w on Jan 16, 2008 2:24 PM PST up reply actions  

I think it's somewhat necessary
because the poster spent the first part of the post denying that a concept existed, and then used that denied concept to come to a conclusion in the last part of the post.

While I'm not hyper-pedantic normally, that kind of thing always bothers me, because you can't have it both ways - if you disagree with a concept, you can't use it later, because you've already said you don't agree with it.

And, I'm not "losing my shit", I'm just trying to understand where the OP was coming from.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 16, 2008 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Didn't mean you specifically
but my god, people are going nuts over this - and it hasn't even happened/may not ever happen.

Not saying everyone needs to teach the world to sing or something, but of all the issues on which M's blogs could settle into all-out war and call each nasty names....i'm just shocked it's this one.  

yes, it's both sides (LL has taken a bit of a beating in comments over at DOV) - I just don't get it.  

As to your argument about the poster's argument, I have no argument.  

by marc w on Jan 16, 2008 2:32 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't get it either
but what it seems to come down to is that neither side seems to hear what the other is saying, they hear what they want to hear, thusly:

DOV says:  Bedard is great, get him now!
LL says:  Bedard is great, but not at the price he'll command, because the M's aren't solely an Erik Bedard away from a WS appearance!

DOV hears:  LL HATES BEDARD!  UNPROVEN PLAYERS ARE AWESOME ALWAYS!
LL hears:  CIRCULAR ARGUMENT WITH NO DEFENSIBLE PROOF!  WIN NOW, WHO CARES ABOUT 2009/10/11?

and it just spirals downward until nothing anybody says makes any sense.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 16, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't see how LL is hearing incorrectly.
I've read the comments of that blog, that's pretty much exactly what they're saying.
Babies hate me.

by CapSea on Jan 16, 2008 3:43 PM PST up reply actions  

You just proved my point, though.
I did not say 'hearing incorrectly'.  I said 'hearing what they want to hear'.  Big, big difference.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 16, 2008 3:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Ah
So you're saying DOV is simply hitting our expectations.

Though I would argue I don't want to hear what I'm hearing, because it frustrates me.

Babies hate me.

by CapSea on Jan 16, 2008 3:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Understandable
and, like Graham, I tend to not read them.  
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 16, 2008 3:55 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't usually do this
But it's bothering me now.  The word is "theoretical".  One h.

by patsfan on Jan 16, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Hey look!
If you double Horacio's numbers, the M's get 8 more wins!
Ill Ligitamus Non Carberendum

by PositivePaul on Jan 16, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions  

If you take out all those starts
that Ho lost....oh, never mind.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 16, 2008 2:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Ho's don't start.
They finish or they don't get paid.
Babies hate me.

by CapSea on Jan 16, 2008 2:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Right
I wonder if this isn't part of the reason both camps keep talking past each other...

It seems 'fairer' (if that's the right word) to use a decent projection of where the M's are right now as the baseline and not where they were in 2007.
As many have said, part of this is not wanting to 'punish' the 2008 club for the sins of the 2007 version (starting Weaver, Horacio) - Weaver's gone and Horacio will almost undoubtedly see a different role this year.
Cha Seung Baek was actually at/above league average last year (under 5.0 in tRA, nice FIP, so-so xFIP) and seems like a pretty good candidate to take some of the innings wasted on Weaver/Ho last year, if you want to attach real live M's to discussions of replacement level or guys-bedard-might-displace.
If you use Baek as the baseline and not Horacio, you get vastly different numbers of the impact Bedard makes - and that's precisely the problem: if swapping out one #5 possibility for another changes the hypothetical runs saved by adding Bedard, it can't be a very useful starting point.  You can maximize Bedard's impact by going one way or minimize going another (or make up something else by projecting Morrow over 180 innings).   The point is, using the hypothetical 'replacement level' makes a lot of sense in that it renders these judgment calls moot.  

You're sandy at DOV, right?   You did yeoman's work laying out just how important the M's poor DER was to their RA last year.  How bad do you think the team's DER might be in 2008?   Would you agree that this factor likely swamps the park effects involved in this move?  

by marc w on Jan 16, 2008 2:23 PM PST up reply actions  

DER and the Ms
In Bedard's case, one of the very reasons I used 2006 figures instead of 2007 was because the DER for the Ms in 2007 and Os in 2006 were very similar.  That was a quick and dirty way to adjust for that without a lot of work.

My own feeling is that the Ms DER is likely going to improve in 2008 with little effort.  Why?

Because, the worst defender, (by pretty much every metric around), on the Ms in 2007 was Guillen, who is gone.  This is simlilar to the HoRam effect on pitching.  The easiest way to improve is simply dump your dregs.

The Ms don't have an obvious cause for their 2007 DER woes.  The team isn't horribly old, and they have a number of atheletic and 'visually' competent defenders.  And team DER does tend to swing from season to season even without 'obvious' causes.

I'm thinking a DER bounce is likely, though probably not more than into the middle of the pack, (15th - 17th), based primarily on almost guaranteed improvement in RF, and continued growth and improvement by the young middle infield.

I left any DER adjustment out of my Bedard calculations simply because defense IS extremely speculative.  

In all honesty, if the Ms get Bedard, (and hold onto Morrow), I'd have no qualms at all in projecting 700 runs allowed in 2008.  I think they can absorb the loss of Sherrill, but think the loss of Sherill AND Morrow could prove overly stressful on the bullpen dynamic.  (I also consider Morrow the default #6 starter - for injury coverage - and think he's a vastly superior option than HoRam as a starter).

Calm is contagious

by Firemane on Jan 17, 2008 5:57 AM PST up reply actions  

the team does have obvious causes for poor DER
they're Sexson and Ibanez and neither is going anywhere in 2008. And if you deal Jones, the likely replacements in RF are not going to be much of an improvement over Guillen defensively.

by Matthew on Jan 17, 2008 10:42 AM PST up reply actions  

And if they *are* better than Guillen on D
they're likely to be much much worse at the plate. At this point, Jones is the only guy who looks like he can provide both good hitting and good fielding.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 17, 2008 10:44 AM PST up reply actions  

I hope you mean for basically no money
because wanting Jeff Weaver (at his old price) would be wrong.  

by marc w on Jan 16, 2008 3:35 PM PST up reply actions  

1M is worth it, easily.
Shit, sign him for 2 years at 3 million.
Babies hate me.

by CapSea on Jan 16, 2008 3:42 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't know
Miguel Cairo was almost $1 million....

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 16, 2008 5:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Why didn't that work last year?
2006 ERA: 5.8   (2006 ERA in AL: 6.3)
2007 Salary: $8.3m

by marc w on Jan 16, 2008 5:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok, that's a good point
Amend my post to 'consistently high ERA'

Last winter Weaver was looked at as a good bounceback candidate (and he really didn't get very much interest until the Mariners's offer).

Pitching as poorly as he did will have done bad things to his stock.

by Graham MacAree on Jan 16, 2008 5:17 PM PST up reply actions  

I've been urging the M's to get Weaver
for years now (by urging the M's, I mean writing blog comments); I've consistently underestimated his market value.   Every single time.  
Yes, he was a bounce-back candidate last year, but he was a candidate after 2003, 2005 and 2006.   Why don't people realize that his odds are a little lower than 'conventional wisdom' has estimated and drop the freakin' price on their offer sheets?

I hate to say it, because it's like saying goodbye to an old friend, but Jeff Weaver may just suck.

by marc w on Jan 16, 2008 5:22 PM PST up reply actions  

He does suck
But he'd also be a cheap, easily disposable innings sponge that would allow Morrow to develop in... oh, who'm I kidding?

by Graham MacAree on Jan 16, 2008 5:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Don't we have about 10
SP who fit this mold.  I'd rather just use the money and find the hardest throwing people in the world.  Maybe tap into India.  They've got a lot of people and would play for cheap.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 16, 2008 5:37 PM PST up reply actions  

explanation
In my intitial reading of Jeff's post, it didn't sink in that his starting point was assuming replacement level production.  When he stated a 30-40 run improvement (which he has amended to 40-50), I mentally applied that as an intended improvement over 2007 - and that seemed drastically low to me.  (In re-reading the original article, what he was doing WAS stated, I just didn't completely grasp it).

After he clarified the assumption of 2008 replacement level production, then I realized his projection is actually right on the money with mine.

Replacing the #5 slot production with replacement level production is worth 30-40 runs.  Swapping Bedard for that is another 40-50 runs.  

Does this address the loss of Sherrill or Jones or potential impact on defense?  No.  But, my projection was based on Bedard's 2006 numbers, and I also am not factoring in the likely park effect benefits in moving from Camden to Safeco.

In the end, the Ms allowed 813 runs in 2007.  That is not in dispute.  The attempt to assess where they stand (and whether they have a playoff shot in 2008) really needs to (at some point), figure out the 2008 projected runs allowed.

I made the error of thinking that Jeff was suggesting Bedard would only reduce Seattle's runs allowed from 813 to around 770.  Once he clarified his starting point for me, it would appear to me that his projection would have Seattle closer to 730.  

The loss of Sherrill could hurt that.  Yes.  But, HoRam moving to the pen and becoming the lefty specialist (and he has a MUCH better split versus lefties), softens that blow.  Then again, Seattle has shown an incredible knack for developing a bullpen, so I personally don't have a lot of concern in that arena.

Calm is contagious

by Firemane on Jan 17, 2008 5:46 AM PST reply actions  

With Bedard, I'd put them in the 700-750 RA range
Assuming an ~equivalent offense, that puts them at a Pythagorean 85-90 wins (with better odds of the latter than the former). Good, but I think the Angels would still be a few wins better.

I really wish there were a way to do this without Jones.

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 17, 2008 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Moar_bacon_small
Everything I Know About Jesus Montero

Recent FanPosts

Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
OTDOD - Early February Edition
Agentejebaox3_small
A Statistical Analysis of Mariners' Fan Support
Small
Who will have a better season?
Claw_small
BA's Top 10 M's Prospects
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Munenori Kawasaki Predictions!!!
Small
The Longevity and Future Success of Felix Hernandez.
Small
The present vs future conundrum

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew