Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: The Boxing Bulletin for Boxing Fans!

Ichiro is 34 and the M's are rebuilding

I've been living in Boston for the past 6 years. A few weeks ago my wife and I went to see Felix pitch six shutout innings against the Red Sox in Fenway. That was a good day.

After the game we were leaving Fenway when a number of drunk Boston fans started chanting "Beat LA". I laughed and shook my head in disgust. My wife noticed and asked me why. This got us to talking about the nature of sports fans.

It has been hard these past few years watching Boston fans celebrate success after success of their local clubs. But the reaction to the recent Celtics success has been particularly hard to watch. I explained to my wife that it's hard for me to see all these bandwagon fans who for the past six years were absolutely silent about the Celtics all of a sudden come out of the woodwork and paint the city green. I haven't so much as had one conversation in the past six years with any Boston sports fan about the Celtics, but now this year, overnight, you can't walk down the street without seeing a sea of green t-shirts.

So this led to a discussion about exactly why this bothered me and I found myself struggling to explain. I recounted the the reasons why I've been a Mariners fan all these years even while living in Boston and watching everyone celebrate the RedSox and Patriot's successes all the while watching the M's flounder in the basement of their division.

I'm a Mariners fan now, because my Grandfather is. And because my cousins are and my uncles are. Because my whole family is from Washington and that is how I grew up. I can no more change my allegiance than I can change my family. And what's more, I love baseball.

My wife countered with something along the lines of, "But the team you were watching as a kid is gone! The team -now- is not the same team! And the current team... sucks. So why are you still a 'fan'?"

My reply? That's exactly backward! The team has not changed. The players have changed. Yes, the players are important and I have fond memories of many past Mariner players. But I have no emotional investment in the day-to-day play of Jamie Moyer for instance since he left the Mariners. And Jamie is my all time favorite Mariner. The same is true for dozens of former M's who are now playing for different teams. Sure I might look back fondly on certain guys (some more than others), but my team is still the Mariners.

All of this points to the title. For me, Ichiro is not the Mariners. He's a great player and my late Grandmother's favorite Mariner of all time. On the other hand, he is an aging player who is assuredly going to be declining in the next few years as almost all players do. And the M's are now all about the future. Or should be. That's why it is disturbing to see a frontpage post on U.S.S. Mariner which flat out disowns the mere thought of trading Ichiro, but nonetheless seriously entertains the idea of trading Felix.

And I've seen many similar sentiments expressed on this site and others as well. I get that some of this is just a response to certain anti-Ichiro articles in the media that place blame on Ichiro for the teams recent failures. But Ichiro, a thirty four year old right fielder who hits singles should be untouchable while Felix Hernandez who is still a kid and getting paid pennies is not?? And for a team in need of major rebuilding?? I just don't understand.

To be clear, I'm in favor of entertaining all serious offers. For any player. I think any front office that fails to do so is incompetent and deserves to be fired. Unlike some I don't think any current player should be completely untouchable. Now, whether I trust the current front office to pursue such offers is an entirely different matter!

For me, no one player is more important than the future success of this team. I enjoy watching Ichiro and don't want to see him go. He is currently one of the few remaining things that make the M's enjoyable to watch. However, he is not the Mariners. He's just a player and one that is getting older at that. It is just not clear that a future M's team with a real shot of postseason success can be put together with Ichiro as a central piece.

I was a Mariner's fan long before Ichiro came along and I'll be a Mariner's fan long after he is gone. For better or worse. I trust that holds for the majority of the people on this site who really don't have a choice in the matter either.

So ask yourself this, if the Mariners hired your personal favorite for GM and gave him the keys to the club and along came another Bavasi representing another club and offered up his choicest of Minor League prospects for Ichiro, wouldn't you want the offer to be seriously looked at?

2 recs  |  Comment 173 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

1. Adam Jones was more than a prospect.
2. Erik Bedard is no Ichiro.
3. I doubt we could get equal value for Ichiro, which is part of the reason they don’t want those guys traded.

At least we don't have Zito's contract.

by ColeFitz on Jun 29, 2008 10:42 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I think every last reader here would be willing to entertain offers for Ichiro

but as long as ownership is unwilling to consider the issue, I just don’t see the point in discussing it so much.

by Jeff on Jun 29, 2008 10:48 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

This.

It’s pointless to discuss something that will never happen.

by Gomez on Jun 29, 2008 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If its pointless to discuss things that'll never happen

is it also pointless to follow a team that will never succeed?

by Edgar for Pres on Jun 29, 2008 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah I'm just sad now

Before hopes and sucess it was easier to follow a team that lost all the time. When you taste what its like, its so hard to go back.

by Edgar for Pres on Jun 29, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Was 2007 really a success?

It just delayed the FO realizing a change needed to be made, and cost us 4 prospects and Sherrill, and now we hope we can get 75 cents on the dollar in exchange.

by LantermanC on Jun 30, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not the team's fault.

That’s stupid management. Yes, 2007 was a resounding success.

by Matthew on Jun 30, 2008 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"Resounding"

I think you exaggerate. Any team that can’t get into the post season I don’t think qualifies as a ‘resounding’ success.

by manyoso on Jun 30, 2008 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So if the Rays win 93 games and miss the playoffs

that’s not a resounding success?

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's in comparison to their previous year

Any team that goes from 66 wins to 93 wins… yah, that’s a good size success I think.

However, the M’s in 2007 were +10 wins on 2006. Not +30. And that was 4 years into the rebuilding project. And what’s more, I think this year adds support to the unremarkable idea that 2007 was actually pretty lucky.

by manyoso on Jun 30, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Given only division champs and the best record otherwise get into the playoffs

Missing the playoffs in MLB isn’t the stamp of mediocrity it is in other sports.

by Gomez on Jun 30, 2008 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, but I don't think it makes sense to evaluate '07 in isolation

We’re talking four years into a rebuild and major regressions everywhere. This ‘08 team is not that different from ‘07. We’ve added a better pitcher in Bedard and lost Guillen and Sherrill.

by manyoso on Jun 30, 2008 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh... different definition of team I guess.

You’re talking about the players. I mean the whole organization when I say team.

by LantermanC on Jun 30, 2008 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It is physically possible for the Mariners to succeed, whether because of their efforts or despite them

It’s not plausible for a general manager, under zero-tolerance orders from ownership not to deal a certain player, to deal said player.

by Gomez on Jun 29, 2008 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Desperation

I think you might be underestimating the boldness and level of desperation that exists within the organization right now.

This is a club that has been incredibly conservative over the past several years. A few weeks ago, most people thought McLaren would be around until late season. Almost nobody thought that Bavasi would get fired before the offseason. And the M’s are now shopping around their supposed final piece for a playoff run just a few months after gutting the farm system to acquire him. These moves are totally outside their established MO.

This is perhaps the most disappointing club in team history. The team has already shaken things up, and the trade rumors are persistent. I wouldn’t be surprised if they made more completely unexpected moves before August 1st.

by Jerry on Jun 29, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ichiro puts butts in seats

Thats really why he’s untouchable, nothing really to do with his play on the field.

by Scrupio on Jun 29, 2008 10:53 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

For the record...

I hadn’t seen the ‘Trade Ichiro’ fanpost of a few days ago before I wrote this. I’ve seen it now as it was discussed over on Prospect Insider. I see now that this was discussed quite a bit already here on LOL.

by manyoso on Jun 29, 2008 12:01 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I am of the belief that if the right moves are made this team can be competitive next season.

What you’re seeing this season is the result of having below replacement level players manning 1B/DH/RF, the easiest parts of a ballclub to fill. Put league average players in those spots and this team is drastically improved. Remember, the AL West is a very weak division.

by BrianL on Jun 29, 2008 12:53 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Not at all

I completely disagree with your argument about the teams ills being solely attributable to 1B/DH/RF.

I agree that those positions are holes. However, that is not the end of the teams problems. These are areas that need improvement:

1) Lack of ability to get one base throughout the lineup. The M’s are dead last in MLB in OBP at .312. Getting on base is the most important part of scoring runs, and the M’s have out machines throughout the lineup. Obviously, improving at 1B and DH is a quick fix. But that won’t fix the M’s problem. The top 5 teams are all at about .350. Right now, Jeremy Reed is the only M’s starter with an OBP above .350. The ML average is .331. Only Reed, Ichiro and Ibanez are above average. Lopez, Betancourt, Johjima, and Beltre are the worst offenders, consistently putting up OBPs of .320 or less. It is almost impossible to win games making outs at that rate, and the M’s need more than a new DH and 1B to fix that problem. Beyond Clement, there really isn’t anyone in the farm system who will help. The M’s, as an organization, have accumulated a ton of tools guys who don’t have good plate discipline.

2). Bad defense. Despite their reputation, the M’s are a terrible defensive team. Lopez and Betancourt are not the plus gloves we thought they were. Clement’s best case scenario is league average. With Ichiro in RF, we have upgraded RF and downgraded CF. Getting Ibanez out of LF will be a huge plus, and 1B is not difficult to upgrade. However, fixing the offense while simultaneously fixing the defense will be tough. This is one area where the farm system could help, particularly in the OF, but the middle infield defense is becoming a big issue.

3). Starting pitching. After Felix and Bedard, the M’s rotation is not good at all. Washburn, Silva, and Batista are all #5 quality starters. All are underperforming their FIPs (particularly Silva), and moving Morrow to the rotation could help immensely. However, it is looking really likely that the M’s will move Bedard, which, obviously, will be a big loss to the rotation. There isn’t much help on the way in the system besides Morrow. Feierabend could replace one of the back end guys at much lower cost, but that wouldn’t really equate to an on-field upgrade.

This is a club that has pretty much reached rock bottom without too many major injuries. Putz is the only major contributor to miss significant time, but the pen has not been a huge issue despite his loss. Really, the bullpen is the only part of this club that doesn’t need retooling.

The only real way that the M’s could make enough of an upgrade at RF, 1B, and DH would be to go out in free agency and spend BIG. Like signing Jason Giambi, Milton Bradley, and Mark Teixeira. That would cost many millions over many years, and is not realistic at all. Then you still have bad middle infield defense and mediocre starters after Bedard and Felix.

This is why so many people want to blow this club up. The team isn’t as bad as their record, but they have a lot more to do to get back into contention. If they trade a few guys while they still have value, they could set themselves up for the long term. Continuing to think that they are close to contention, as you are arguing, is exactly what got them into this mess in the first place.

by Jerry on Jun 29, 2008 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good

I look forward to that. It is the most important issue that this team needs to address going forward.

by Jerry on Jun 29, 2008 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

For people who don't read good

Sorry if that was too long. Here are the cliff notes of my post:

The M’s are not a good club at the big league level or the upper levels of the farm system. The M’s rank at or near the bottom in nearly every significant offensive stat. The team can’t get on base, and doesn’t hit for power. Jose Vidro was our cleanup hitter today. When Jose Vidro is your #4 hitter, you need more than a few bats to contend. The M’s also need to improve on defense. It will be difficult to fix the offense without further hurting the defense. A lot of people think this is a good team that is playing badly. However, it is becoming more and more clear that this club is just really really bad.

Trying to contend next year would require huge free agent expenditures to fill gaping holes at DH, 1B, and RF. The M’s don’t have a strong core of players to build around, and buying that core in free agency is not a good way to put together a roster.

Bavasi continually tried to buy this team into contention via a series of terrible contracts to free agents and bad trades. He was wrong when he thought this club could contend last offseason, and he set back the club a few years. The next GM needs to fix that damage.

The M’s need to rebuild right now. This team is so fundamentally flawed, it is best to just start over.

Sorry if this is not a two line post, but most things that are worth saying require more than 10 words.

by Jerry on Jun 29, 2008 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well

Read well

One Vision, One Purpose
Peace Through Power

by Goose on Jun 29, 2008 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The "huge free agent expenditures to fill gaping holes at DH, 1B, and RF"

is the major point i disagree with.

Ibanez to DH, Wlad in RF, Ichiro/Reed in CF/RF (I don’t really care). That means all you need is a 1B. If you are smart about it you can find a player for cheap or a blocked AAA 1B prospect that you could deal for (Brewers off the top of my head might be an example).

Flush Washburn and Batista (and Silva) and replace them with Morrow and maybe some other prospect and you are doing ok.

This team is probably one of the best last place teams you can think of.

by Edgar for Pres on Jun 29, 2008 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do that...

And I think you are back to 2007 at best. .500 club most likely. You are counting heavily on:

1) Reed’s progress turning out to be the real deal
2) Wlad successfully making the transition to the majors
3) Finding some power in 1B

And you still haven’t done anything about the gaping whole with defense at SS or the underperforming “ace” you just dealt for. And if you put Morrow in the lineup there is zero evidence he can handle the extra strain on his arm and still be the pitcher we see now. Also, you are relying on the hope that Putz comes back at or near where he was.

That’s a lot of blind hope.

by manyoso on Jun 30, 2008 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I the team right now is a true .500 club.

A lot of people are going to disagree with me, but I think the results we’ve seen so far this season are a bigger aberration than the 88-win 2007 campaign. Just take a look at Ichiro and Beltre, two integral players who have great peripheral numbers but haven’t gotten the results you would expect. I just don’t believe that this team is really as bad as the record indicates.

If I’m right, and this team is really a .500-ish club with its current makeup, the simple changes being advocated here might be enough to take advantage of a weak division. Anything beyond those moves (Hello, Mark Teixeira) only improves those odds.

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 7:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Forget the actual results then...

As results based analysis is stupid. Still, there is no getting around the fact that we have weakness in lots of spots. One look at our defense proves this to be true. Nearly every position and piece of the club has problems.

Say Beltre and Ichiro were performing to the level that their peripheral numbers suggest they should… even then we still are not a .500 club from what I can see. If you look at the club with starry eyes and squint and hope that every piece performs up to expectations, then perhaps…. you get what we had in 2007. That is not even a club that can make the postseason.

I want more.

I want a full rebuild once our new GM comes on board.

by manyoso on Jun 30, 2008 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So now your advocating for a blowup because you're mad about how many games the team has lost.

This team has a solid core that can compete next season if the right moves are made. A full rebuild is not needed to succeed.

I know you’re upset over how the team has performed. All of us are. That’s no reason to want to blow the team up, though.

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, it's not that I'm mad

It is just that I have no confidence in the current makeup of this team.

by manyoso on Jun 30, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think you're underestimating

how much having black holes at 1B and DH can screw a team over.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So I've never really looked into this

but are Richie and Vidro below replacement level now?

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They can't even be CLOSE to replacement now, can they?

I’m sure like Michael Saunders could put up a .650 OPS with all those Ks for Richie…

by seattlebruin on Jun 30, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vidro's OPS+ is 63

And Sexson’s is a slightly less embarassing 86, but he’s achieved that mostly with OBP instead of the power you’re supposed to get from a 1B. Both aren’t anywhere close to replacement level.

I wonder how many runs they end up costing us over the course of a season with those numbers versus league average replacements, assuming both get 450 PA’s or so… That would probably be useful to know in determining how far away this team really is from contention next season, among other things.

by OlSalty on Jun 30, 2008 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I also find it amusing that if this were measuring IQ instead of OPS

Vidro would technically be considered mildly mentally retarded.

by OlSalty on Jun 30, 2008 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In 2007, BPro

had Sexson at 22.3 runs below the average for his position, based on EQA. To date, he is at 9.9 runs below position.

Vidro, to date, is already 18.3 runs below position.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jul 1, 2008 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Depends on your definition of replacement level

Using VORP, Vidro is -7.0, Sexson, at replacement level.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jul 1, 2008 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Booooo

Unwillingness to rebuild is what got us into this mess.

That is exactly what Bavasi did when this team bottomed out in 2004. He didn’t want to rebuild, and instead of building from the bottom up and building a healthy organization, he tried to win every year. That didn’t work.

You are essentially arguing for the same course of action what got us into this mess.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bavasi was bad at his job.

The new GM might not be.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Contradiction in terms

Honestly, this team is so fundamentally flawed, that any GM who attempted to win in 2009 over rebuilding properly is, by definition, a bad GM.

This club is a debacle. Rearranging the deck chairs won’t cut it.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Uh, OK

Well, I guess I missed that. Just have to take your word that is was a great argument, then.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Precisely, they're not mutually exclusive.

Especially when your club has a 117 million dollar payroll.

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not in the abstract, but definitely in this specific case

This is not a steadfast rule. But with this specific club, that is the reality they face. This club is terrible because they don’t have enough talent. There is no quick fix for that.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Again, this is rebuilding

You can’t do it through free agent signings and shifting around deck chairs.

The A’s are a great example. They committed to rebuilding, still managed to improve their club, and are contending.

The Rangers are doing this too. They sold off expensive veterans, brought in young talent, and made some really smart, low-risk free agent signings, and are better right now. But this is a rebuilding club.

The Marlin’s are another example. They are very clearly in rebuilding mode. They dealt Cabrera, Willis, and anyone else who made any money. And they still improved.

Those clubs are all a lot more interesting now than they were last season. But all are making moves with an eye on 2009 and 2010 over short-term goals.

I am not saying that the M’s should necessarily concede to losing 90 games next season. That isn’t necessary. But they do need to rebuild the core of the club. Because right now, they don’t have any hitters, and one of their two good starters won’t be here when this club is a legit contender.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Apples and oranges.

A’s payroll-$48 million
Rangers payroll$67.7 million
Marlins payroll-$28.8 million
Mariners payroll$117.6 million

The M’s have a lot of money coming off the books next year and their biggest weaknesses are at positions that are among the easiest to fill. If they were a mid market team with one or two valuable pieces, I might be with you. But they’re not.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In summary......

So, are you arguing that the M’s need to throw money at free agents to fix the worst offense in baseball?

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is a lot of money to be thrown

When you have a lot of money you don’t really need to rebuild, look at the Yankees.

That is assuming, of course, that you actually use your money wisely. What Bavasi did with our payroll is a terrible example of how a high payroll team should be using their money and just because he fucked it up doesn’t mean the next GM will. He was positively awful at talent evaluation, if you give that same money to a competent GM who uses it correctly the turnaround would be very quick.

by OlSalty on Jun 30, 2008 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well

I do think Reed is good enough to be a near average OF. There is no reason Wlad shouldn’t be able to handle MLB next year. 1B should be pretty easy to fill. I don’t want to go and list examples of times it had been easily done.

Yeah you can have below average players on the field and still be good. I’m not looking for a WS ring next year. A 2007 performance would be great.

by Edgar for Pres on Jun 30, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Minor changes

Those moves won’t cut it at all.

In fact, that team could conceivably be just as bad as this one.

You still have no good hitters in the middle of the order. The defense is still mediocre. The pitching is more volatile, because you are relying on a converted reliever who never started in the minor leagues. And you don’t have any depth to deal with issues that arise, because the upper levels of the farm system are pretty thin now.

That would be a HUGE disappointment.

The infinitely wise Billy Beane once said “You’re either rebuilding for something special, or you’re on the verge of something special. To be in between is foolish.”

That team is in between.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Billy Beane isn't always right.

I’ve never been a fan of this quote, because it’s an oversimplification, and oversimplifications are most often incorrect.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wrong again

The Rays made a few minor changes and now they have the best record in baseball.

by JI on Jun 30, 2008 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Improved infield defense and slight rotation tweak = best record in baseball.

You don’t have to blow up a club to get big improvements.

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Rays also greatly have benefitted from their younger core players further maturing

and a nice seasons from Navarro/Percival/Longoria up to this point.

But yeah, I’d wholeheartedly concur with the premise of “if you have a decent core in place, rebuilding isn’t necessary to contend,” and the Mariners certainly have that core – a very good CF, a SS with value (who will hopefully be flipped for a SS who’s actually good), probably the best 2B in all of baseball =), a very good 3B, a few good starters and the makings of a decent bullpen. I see no reason why we can’t plug LF/RF/DH with a few guys who can hit a little and win ~90 games next season.

by seattlebruin on Jul 1, 2008 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Come on, seriously?

The Rays were in rebuild mode for approximately 10 years.

The Rays are good because they have a huge stockpile of young talent. That is what rebuilding teams do: trade veterans for young talent. That is exactly why the M’s should tear this team down. They don’t have a foundation like the Rays do.

If you want to watch a club like the Rays, the M’s MUST rebuild.

This is a great argument against the point you are trying to make.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Uh, OK

Since you don’t back up your opinion at all (well, besides capital letters), it is sorta hard to see your reasoning.

I would note that pretty much everyone in the mainstream media, the local media, and every blog besides this one and the USSMariner disagree with this. And about half the comments here and at USSMariner don’t see a realistic way to contend without seriously jeopardizing the future.

I have heard a few hints that a long post is in the works on this topic. I look forward to hearing it. But right now, the arguments against rebuilding aren’t a whole lot more sophisticated than “nuh uh”.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually.....

A few people said “your wrong” too.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who cares what the media thinks?

The media thought this team would contend.

by Jeff on Jun 30, 2008 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not just ESPN.com

This is not just the mainstream media. There is pretty widespread consensus that the M’s are in a deep hole. Their record reflects that. Their pythag record reflects that. The state of the farm system reflects that. And common sense reflects that. The M’s are on a pace to lose over 100 games. How often do teams bounce back and contend after 100 losses? And why should we think this club is a historical outlier?

Again, I am not seeing any convincing argument that this team can contend without blowing a HUGE wad in free agency. And that is a bad way to build a roster.

The M’s need to turn their focus on 2010 at this point. They can still get better in 2009. That isn’t difficult. They could put together a club like the Rangers, who have done an excellent job rebuilding their organization. If things go well, they could even be a huge surprise.

But focusing on winning in the short term right now is a terrible idea.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's funny
But focusing on winning in the short term right now is a terrible idea.

This is nobody’s argument.

by Jeff on Jun 30, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, it is

The crux of this argument is whether the M’s have enough talent to contend, or if it would be better to sell off some veterans with trade value in order to add young talent to the organization. That is the argument.

The M’s are sellers in a buyers market right now. They have an opportunity to unload a lot of payroll and get back a lot of talent.

The alternative, which acblue, JI, Gomez, and BrianL are in favor of, is keeping the guys with trade value, improving offensive production at 1B, RF, and DH, and improving the defense. Presumably this would be through free agency or trades. Free agents cost money and (usually) draft picks, and trades cost prospects.

How is this not an argument about the future versus the short-term (2009)?

To contend, the M’s need to fix a lot of problems. That would be almost impossible to achieve without gutting the system or saddling the team with free agent contracts. In the real world, that type of turnaround is exceptionally rare, and it is all but impossible to achieve without sacrificing the long-term well being of the organization.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

We're not advocating selling our prospects for veterans.

The future and a pleasant present need not be mutually exclusive.

by JI on Jun 30, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also, we wouldn't lose draft picks, right?

Since we’re in the top half of the first round? The team would just get a sandwich pick instead, IIRC.

by seattlebruin on Jul 1, 2008 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

"They can still get better in 2009. That isn’t difficult."

I’m pretty sure that’s what everyone is saying.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, better

This argument isn’t about getting better.

It is about contending.

These are two totally different things.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Run the numbers and replace Joh, Vidro, Wilk/Wlad and Sexson with league average production

you’d be amazed at how many more runs this team will score. That’s even assuming we don’t upgrade at second and/pr short.

by JI on Jun 30, 2008 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This has been fun

I would love to continue this conversation, but it is way late here on the east coast.

I hope that Jeff’s future posting on this topic does run the numbers, because this is a really interesting debate.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Look at last year's standings

fjaskldjfklasljfsaf (check the very bottom of the AL East, you might find a team we talk about here sometimes)

by seattlebruin on Jul 1, 2008 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Way to completely miss the point.

The point is that the Rays patched the holes on their defense, added some freely available OF/1B talent, picked up a few relief arms, and presto they had a supporting cast to go with their top talents. They are the best team in baseball year despite Pena completely sucking, kazmir’s missing a month, and Upton and Crawford having off years.

The biggest problems with our team are the defense and the C/OF/1B/DH spots. There are the easiest spots on a team to fix. If handled properly this could be a 88-90 win team next year. The core talent is already in place.

by JI on Jun 30, 2008 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your missing the point

The key phrase in your comment there is: “to go with their top talents.”

The M’s don’t have nearly enough top talents.

Do you honestly think the M’s roster is in any way similar to where the Rays were at a year ago?

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes.

Beltre, Felix, Bedard, Putz, Morrow, Clement, Reed, and Ichiro are all very good players,.

RRS, Lowe, Green, Betancourt, Wlad, Ibanez and Lopez are all useful.

I think you underestimate just how incredibly terrible Vidro, Sexson, and the third OF blackhole are, and how incredibly easily the can be replaced. If you plug these holes with average to good players, replace Boom-Boom, Cairo, Johjima/Burk, with good useful bench players we will score and prevent many more runs.

by JI on Jun 30, 2008 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

M's versus Rays

Good players aren’t hard to find.

We are talking about cornerstone players.

The M’s have Felix, Putz, Bedard, and Ichiro who fall into that category. Beltre and Reed are nice pieces, and Morrow and Clement have that upside, but aren’t there yet.

The Rays?

Evan Longorria, BJ Upton, Scott Kazmir, and James Shields are all franchise cornerstones, and they have really really good players in Matt Garza, Carl Crawford, Dioner Navarro, and Dan Wheeler. I am not going to mention all the players they have that are useful. Plus, most importantly, they have the best farm system in baseball, by a large margin. Because of that, they won’t need to spend big in free agency to fill holes.

The Rays are the epitome of a club that was a few good moves from a serious run.

Their organization is just much much better. It isn’t close.

That is what the M’s need to build. The faster they start, the better.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Rays also play in the AL East.

And they’re also poor and can only hope to contend by doing things in one particular fashion.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 30, 2008 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

AL West

The AL west is not a weak division anymore. The only pushovers in the division are the M’s. The A’s always manage to contend. The Angels are one of the best teams in baseball, and should stay good for at least the next year or two. And the Rangers are among the most improved clubs in baseball.

This is not a weak division.

by Jerry on Jun 30, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It is a weak division

The Angels are one of the best teams in baseball

Uhh no, they are not. They are lucky, their pythag puts them at around a .500 team. And Oakland looks so fantastic mainly because everyone else in the division is a pile of suck right now.

by OlSalty on Jun 30, 2008 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is an extremely weak division.

The Angels are horribly over-performing. They should be closer to a 42 win team right now.

by BrianL on Jul 1, 2008 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Morrow and Clement have that upside, but aren’t there yet.

Gee, like say Longoria this time last year?

and how the bal;s is Morrow not there yet?

Beltre is a cornerstone player, how can you lump in him in the same group as Reed.

Plus, most importantly, they have the best farm system in baseball, by a large margin. Because of that, they won’t need to spend big in free agency to fill holes.

Darn, I wish our team had money .

by JI on Jun 30, 2008 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know it's overly simple and It doesn't even begin to factor in defense or park effects

but, look at the difference when you add in league average players into our problem spots:

(god I hope this shows up):

Current ~3.99 runs/gm

Possible ~4.65 runs/gm

That’s even with low end estimates for all the possible 2009 rollovers. This offense can be fixed. I still don’t you understand how incredibly easy Sexson and Vidro are to replace and how much a few merely adequate hitters would boost the offense. just think what a defensive overhaul could do.

by JI on Jun 30, 2008 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just nitpicking,

but BJ Upton is not having an off year. His overall numbers in 2007 were the result of pretty much unsustainable on contact numbers.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jul 1, 2008 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

*.393

and it’s .350 this year. Yeah I know his average would go down, but he’s making up for it with extra walks. I was more worried about the dip in SLG%.

by JI on Jul 1, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

His on contact BA

in 2007 was 443. His on contact SLG was 753.

This year so far: on contact BA 374, on contact SLG 554.

Upton in the minors: on contact BA 385, on contact SLG 595.

Some comparisons:

McGwire, career OC BA 354, OC SLG 793

Sammy Sosa, career OC BA 370, OC SLG 722

Bonds Jnr, career, OC BA 353, OC SLG 719. 2001-2004, OC BA 408 OC SLG 947

Now granted, there are a bunch of hitters in the recent generation who are pushing the boundaries of on contact numbers: Ryan Howard, who is the king, Jack Cust, Russ Branyan, Ryan Braun, Jim Thome, These guys have OC BA around 375-400+, OC SLG around 775-800+

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jul 1, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

thanks

Click on this link to support an end to censorship.

by JI on Jul 1, 2008 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

TLDR

At least we don't have Zito's contract.

by ColeFitz on Jun 29, 2008 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is a good post

But shouldn’t it be on USS Mariner?

by speedomike on Jun 29, 2008 2:15 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Probably. But I think I've seen the same sentiment here in the past.

I swear Jeff had a frontpage post not long ago that had a ‘don’t trade Ichiro at all costs’ theme, but I can’t find it. Maybe I read it somewhere else and am attributing here mistakenly.

Anyways, it has been on my mind ever since my wife made me explain why I’m still a fan of such a perennially losing team.

by manyoso on Jun 29, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe

I don’t remember seeing it here, but one of your main points is a response to the USSM post.

Regardless, fuck Boston.

by speedomike on Jun 29, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

DMZ can't bring himself to talking about trading Ichiro for personal reasons.

He’ll admit that his reasons are somewhat irrational, but he’s not getting paid to cover or advise the team, so he has no obligation to be objective 100% of the time. I think every fan has the right to hold such opinions, as long as they admit that they’re based on emotion.

I agree that being a fan of a team is more about having an emotional connection to the team than the players. When you follow the team as closely as we do, however, it’s inevitable that you’ll begin to feel emotionally invested in certain players and that attachment may, at times, trump your desire to see the team do the best possible thing. Is that kind of silly? Sure. But it’s the nature of sports fandom.

This is definitely an interesting post, though. I enjoy these discussions a lot.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jun 29, 2008 3:29 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm totally open to trading Ichiro

He’s awesome but I just have never been too emotionally invested in him.

Felix on the other hand

Determined, Jonesing Commentor

by I'm NOT Corco on Jun 30, 2008 9:48 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Given the right package, I think most of us would be open to trading Ichiro.

However, I’m somewhat confident the right package will never materialize. No one values Ichiro’s skillset properly, not even our own FO.

As for Felix…I’m not going to lie, I’d have to think hard if Tampa Bay offered that theoretical package Derek proposed.

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No player is untouchable

Not Felix, not Ichiro, nobody. The problem, as has been stated in many, many comments and threads, is that the FO isn’t capable of getting a good return for players, which makes me not want to trade anybody ever.

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

by pdb on Jun 30, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And really, we've got an interim GM right now.

All of these potential trade ideas are pointless. Lee Pelekoudas probably has the authorization for the following moves:

1) Dump Sexson via trade or DFA
2) Dump Vidro via trade or DFA
3) Dump Cairo via trade or DFA
4) Trade Washburn
5) Trade Tits

I don’t see anything happening beyond that until we have a full-time GM in place.

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No authorization to trade Silva?

If he can get a team to take his salary (even if it’s just 50%) and get anything in return, I hope he pulls the trigger, or at least has the green light to do so.

by LantermanC on Jun 30, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure if the FO is ready to admit a mistake on that contract.

Although I agree, if you get an offer to take his salary I’d pull the trigger.

by BrianL on Jun 30, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

hahaha

I’m flipping through the tv, and there’s two morons on ESPN going on about how the Rays success is bad for baseball. hahahaha

by JI on Jul 1, 2008 9:23 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Dear God.

Indulge me, why is the success of the Rays bad for baseball?

by BrianL on Jul 1, 2008 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm guessing it's that morning show, whatever they're calling it these days.

Does anyone else remember last year when Skip Bayless said Felix wasn’t actually injured (after coming out during the Minnesota game) but was embarrassed by giving up runs early and couldn’t handle the pressure, or some such nonsense? Skip Bayless is the biggest jackass on that station, which is saying an awful, awful lot.

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.

by acblue on Jul 1, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes

Click on this link to support an end to censorship.

by JI on Jul 1, 2008 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In the name of my sanity

Please don’t write your post about Ichiro, Jeff.

by Robert on Jul 1, 2008 9:43 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I thought you said you were going write a post about trading him.

I only mildly pay attention to baseball relevant conservations unless they involve Felix.

by Robert on Jul 1, 2008 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not even when he is traded?

Stranger things have happened. Like Felix hitting a freaking GRAND SLAM off of JOHAN SANTANA!

by manyoso on Jul 1, 2008 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

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.
Start posting about the Mariners »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Max_small
FootbaLL IV (Nov 21st)
Small
The Sabermetrics of Cats

Recent FanPosts

Laughing_man_elmex_small
AFL Championship game thread
Smell-the-glove_small
OFFTOP 11/19 - The Hand of Fraud
Small
Tony Blengino interview on 710 AM ESPN Seattle's Hot Stove League
Ichirocameron_small
OTFPOTD 11/16: Recipes Edition
Small
Lookout Landing as a communtiy
Small
Royals determined to unload Callaspo...
Ichiro_small
Ackley and Triunfel on MLB TV right now
Small
Xbox LLive, Pt 3

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

1_small Graham

Small Matthew

Small Jeff