Churchill is saying Vidro may be gone.
by CstSnow on Jul 13, 2008 6:06 PM PDT
Email
PrintOver at Prospect insider Churchill is saying
"There are some rumors starting to swirl around the team as they left Kaufmann Stadium today that designated hitter Jose Vidro's career in Seattle is over and that he will not be with the team when they open a three-game series versus Cleveland on Friday"
Which is incredibly relieving news, I mean it was inevitable and all but that didnt stop me from worrying that somehow his option would still end up vesting.
124 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Also, the Vidro trade is the worst trade in the history of the Mariners and quite possibly all of professional sports.
I look forward to not being reminded of this every game.
by JI on Jul 13, 2008 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Spike Owen & Dave Henderson to the Red Sox for
Rey Quinonez, Mike Brown, Mike Trujillo, and John Christensen.
by Jed MC on Jul 13, 2008 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
Because that was the first trade that officially ever pissed me off with the Mariners. It was shortly prior to that trade where I’d really started paying attention to the M’s. Spike Owen was one of my favorite players, and I HATED Rey Qunonez.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 13, 2008 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I only mentioned it because Spike Owen was my favorite player then
and it crushed my poor 8 year old soul. I actually remember crying about it.
You can't really mean that.
I mean, yeah he sucks this year, but last year he was OK, and it’s not like we gave up Randy Johnson for him.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Jul 13, 2008 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Ho' for So' was worse.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 13, 2008 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Much much much better in theory
far worse in execution.
Your agreement is seconded.
It’s taken me a while to fully comprehend it, but I have to say that at least the Horacio trade was “trading for an actual need.” The need was a real starting pitcher, not a BP tosser, but yes, the idea was right.
I don't agree with this...
This feels like a copout to me.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
You disagree that trading a good RP for a SP
when the team had a surplus of RP but a shortage of SP is good theory?
Or you just don’t want to separate the idea behind the trade with the actual players involved?
Theory is inevitably tied in with the idea that you're trading for MLB-quality players
If you’re not, then ‘good in theory’ isn’t some magic get-out-of-jail-free card.
I think what Matthew is saying
is that intending to trade a good RP for a useful SP is in itself a good idea… but that how Bavasi went about it with Soriano was absolutely wrong.
Whereas trading an oft-injured and cheap young outfielder (with some pop)
for an oft-injured, expensive infielder (with no pop) is just stupid no matter how you slice it.
That's not the theory behind the Vidro trade
The theory behind the trade for Vidro was young prospect(s) for proven veteran hitter.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I know exactly what he's saying
The question is: Is there a point at which this excuse doesn’t work? Or is trading for a SP – ANY SP – always justifiable in theory?
To me, acquiring a patently awful player in exchange for a good one can’t be justified by referencing their nominal roles.
It doesn't work when the GM in question does something stupid
Both of you are on the right track. These are separate ideas. Using a good concept as an excuse to make a bad trade is still a mistake, but that doesn’t necessarily make the concept correct or incorrect.
I'm not justifying the actual trade
just the idea behind the trade. The execution itself (i.e. the players involved) was clearly the worst that I can think of.
Again, I understand your argument
but I’m just wondering if there’s a point at which it no longer holds.
Clearly (right?), there’s SOME point at which you can’t justify a trade by pointing to roles/positions.
To me, no.
The theory going in and the execution coming out are completely distinct in my mind.
Still
Just because it was a good theory shouldn’t exempt it from “worst trade” status. It hurt us in three ways, a) we lost a talented player in Soriano, b) we received a horrible talent who wasn’t even replacement level in HoRam, and c) it put Morrow in a relievers instead of starting role which may be the most detrimental of all. In no way does Soriano for Horacio Ramirez make any sense at the time or in retrospect and therefore I think that it was the worst trade in Mariners history.
Hey,
So has anyone noticed that Rafael Soriano has only thrown a whoping 9.0 innings this season?
This was a bad trade but I understand what Bavasi was trying to do. And yes, the concept is sound. The execution was bad. But this is EXACTLY why Soriano was moved. Injury concerns.
This trade would look a heck of a lot better of the SP in question was say….a Sean Gallagher (just making a point) instead of Horacio Ramirez.
Or...
...if Bavasi had the cojones to let “Hock Lincstrong” know that he was making progress on the SP front, and was really close to a deal for Hong-Chi Kuo, so they would’ve gotten off his back to pull the trigger on something at the Winter Meetings. It’s because they pressured him, I believe based on conversations I’ve had both with Bavasi himself and with others, that he had to back away from consummating that deal to get something done at the meetings…
Actually, looking back further and considering that “Hock” were indeed putting stupid pressure on Bavasi to do something AT THE MEETINGS, I blame Bavasi a little less for the So’fer-Ho’ deal. It was still stupid, and I’d still argue (even with the hair-splitting discussion of theory vs. execution) that it was one of the worst trades in M’s history - but part of the blame definitely rests squarely on the shoulders of Hock…
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 15, 2008 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Bad GMs let ownership pressure them into making bad moves
If this was the case, Bavasi should’ve had the stones to say, “I have a deal in the works, so STFU and let me finish it.” Bavasi allegedly had a problem with letting superiors press him into making bad, rash moves, and thus it was his downfall.
Right.
There’s an assumption in the theory that the SP is MLB quality. It was widely known in most circles outside of Bavasi’s that Horacio Ramirez wasn’t an SP, let alone a MLB-quality one.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Isn't the execution the problem with most trades.
TOR SP for RP and 4 minor leaguers wouldn’t be a bad deal if those minor leaguers hadn’t been Jones, Mickolio, Butler and Tillman.
If it had been Sherrill, Wlad, Paredes, Justin Thomas and Bibens-Dirx it would have been a good deal… wouldn’t you say?
Midnight Baseball - No Lights - Only in Alaska!
by MfaninAlaska on Jul 14, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I would have
and yes, execution is usually the problem. People usually don’t make trades that are bad in theory because GMs usually don’t get to be GMs by sucking at trade theory.
Bot, as an example, the Vidro trade is probably such an example. Only problem is I have no idea WTF Bavasi’s theory was going in, which you’d have to separate out from the specific players involved.
Ehh
Bear in mind it was widely believed that HoRam as going to be released anyway by the Braves. Calls the concept into question.
Calls what concept into question?
I don’t see how it disagrees with anything I’ve said.
I see your point
The path is veering toward the land of semantics.
M's had hole at DH
Bavasi acquires ailing, aged middle infielder, but slaps the ‘DH’ tag on him.
If the principle here is that we can’t judge the trade based on results, and if you agree that the M’s had a hole at DH and that Bavasi got Vidro to fill that hole… how can you quibble with the theory of that trade?
If the ‘theory’ leads to a passing grade on THAT abomination, we need a new rubric to evaluate trades.
Because I have no idea what Bavasi's plan was
With Soriano, we knew from rumors beforehand that he was available for a SP, so that was clearly the theory behind moving him. The Vidro trade came out of nowhere. We have nothing to work with as far as establishing a motivation. So it’s pretty moot.
Furthermore, I can quibble with the theory of trading to fill a DH hole because it’s almost always stupid.
“If the ‘theory’ leads to a passing grade on THAT abomination, we need a new rubric to evaluate trades.”
But I’m not evaluating a trade based solely on the theory behind it. Your statement makes it seem like I just look at the theory and if it passes muster, say, ok, good trade. I’m not doing anything of the sort.
No, you're not
but I’m just not seeing a lot of utility in the ‘good in theory’ tag if it’s applied too liberally.
Theory is distinct from execution, but there is some overlap (at least to me). The theory only has a chance of success if it’s carried out within some broad parameters. Horacio Ramirez lies outside those parameters, and this, invalidates the ‘good in theory’ claim.
The quick rule of thumb here is that you cannot trade a guy who is good at baseball for a guy who is really, really bad at baseball and say that, while it didn’t work out well for you, it was still good in theory.
Trading injury prone reliever for young starting pitcher = good
they just have no idea how to evaluate pitching talent
The problem here is
“ailing, aged middle infielder, but slaps the ‘DH’ tag on him.”
The theory that an ailing, aged middle infielder would make a good DH is a poor one. If you need a hole filler for DH, just pick up someone like Russ Branyan, or Carlos Pena pre 2007, or Josh Phelps, or guys similar to them: 100-110 OPS+ 1b / dh types who bounce around from team to team.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Well, that's one of many problems.
If they’d called him a 1B or a RF, the major issues would remain.
Yeah, they needed a #2 hitter and a DH
so they trade for Vidro.
Is that ‘good in theory’? Not to me.
Reasonable minds may differ (as to the theory bit, not about whether the trade was good or bad), of course.
Varitek + Lowe for Slocumb?
pretty sure thats worse
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
In hindsight, yes.
It was much more horrible than it seemed at the time because Lowe and Varitek both maxed out.
But think, we couldn’t even decipher the intent behind the Vidro trade until it was explained to us.
by JI on Jul 13, 2008 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions
My thought process on the trade:
“Wait, so we’re trading Snelling and Fruto for a 2B with no knees?”
“Oh, he’s been playing 3B lately….but we have Beltre, and he’s awesome.”
“So, what, we traded a young but oft-injured cheap outfielder and an arm for a backup infield bat? Sure he can switch-hit, but he’s only good for the occasional single.”
“Wait, did Bill just say he’s going to be our new DH? You’ve got to be fucking shitting me.”
I've always found it best to look at that trade as
Varitek + Lowe + Bragg for Slocumb + Moyer. Sure, it’s historically inaccurate, but it leaves me feeling a lot less depressed.
if we're going by that logic...
...than the worst trade ever is a guy for 10 bats…
...talk about demoralizing.
by oc on Jul 14, 2008 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions
One more for you...
To me, the worst trade for the Mariners, ever, is the Tino+Mecir+Nelson for Hitchcock+Russ Davis. Losing Jeff Nelson destroyed our bullpen for a long, LONG time. The hole that was left behind led to the Lowe/’Tek for Slocumb deal, and the trades for Timlin and Spoljaric.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Tino was a pretty good player too.
The Jose Lopez Watch - 113 H - 12 BB - 67 G Left
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2008 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll take a Double Martinez, please!
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
That trade was a good trade
it just didn’t pan out like we hoped.
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
No, it wasn't.
Jeff Nelson was seen as a “throw-in” and at the time I was EXTREMELY livid. The fact that the M’s bullpen suffered greatly for a long, long time only made it that much worse. Tino + Mecir was certainly plenty to land Hitchcock & Davis.
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Arrrggghh! Why is Tino so incredibly overrated?
Think about it you trade
an above average, but not special 1B who is coming off a career year, right as he hits his arb years. The other player is Nelson who was good, but clearly had a career year that season. What do you get?
-a cheap, young, MOR starter
-a cheap, young, average to above average 3B
On paper that was quite a haul.
The fact that Davis was injured and later had his defense degenerated, or that Scott Sanders ceased being awesome the moment he was dealt for Hitchcock ,does not take away from how the deal looked at the time it was made.
Perhaps I'm too young to objectively remember that trade then
but I don’t recall Davis being all that hot of a 3B prospect/young 3B. Same with Hitchcock, but I guess by the RP—> SP is usually a good idea in practice theory…
The Jose Lopez Watch - 113 H - 12 BB - 67 G Left
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2008 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
He was "hot" because he was a Yankee prospect
At the time he looked to be an averagish fielder who w as above average with the bat. (Good bless you Bill james book of player ratings 1995)
Tino had a few pretty good seasons right after we traded him...
Mr. Constantino’s OPS the three seasons after we traded him:
1996: .830
1997: .948
1998: .860
I don’t know how to find better metrics from those years but regardless he was pretty solid.
Russ Davis was averageish with the glove and never even had a .320 OBP with the M’s. Evaluating in hindsight is stupid yes, but regardless you said he was average glove, slightly above average with the bat according to Bill James. The bat ended up not really being above average, but he was close to average so whatever.
Hitchcock had one below average year with us. He was already 25 when we traded for him and hadn’t really looked like he was going to become anything for us—121 K/ 68 BB with 22 HR allowed in 168 IP in Yankee Stadium the year before he was traded to us. So his results got worse in the Kingdome? Buhhh?
Jeff Nelson obviously was a very good reliever for many years.
Mecir was a fairly good reliever for awhile.
The M’s gave up a haul for one year of a mediocre/bad SP and an average or below 3B. If you’re going to go for the young MOR starter-which Hitchcock wasn’t-Mecir for Hitchcock should’ve been enough. Tino WAS good enough that if you wanted to you should’ve been able to trade him for BOTH of those guys without throwing anything else in. The theory behind the trade would’ve been good if you were trading ONE good reliever for ONE middle of the rotation starter, not two good relievers for one mediocre at best starter and one star 1B for a below average 3B that only got his reputation due to Yankee hype. Even the theory on this trade is a stretch even, since they traded three very good players for two kind of bad ones. The theory is supposed to be if you trade a RP for an SP straight up, you should win. That’s not what happened.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Jul 14, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Why did you include stats happening after the trade?
They’re meaningless as far as evaluating the trade itself.
He said Tino wasn't that good.
I was just trying to show him, once again, that Tino was a borderline star, the sometimes-all-star type hitter that is better than he was giving Tino credit for.
Regardless, his numbers before the trade make it a head scratcher too. We traded away his last few prime years and it seems like he peaked late anyway. And he had a .920 OPS the year before we traded him anyway. A player who just came off a season like that is far more valuable than a 25 year old will-he-or-won’t-he SP with Command problems and 3B prospect who’s only getting hype because of the NY on his hat.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Jul 14, 2008 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, but you can not evaluate trades based on what happened after the fact,
especially results that are based on what happened several years later. Even looking at this deal at the end of 1996, you’d still have to concede that the Mariners got the better end of the swap.
If I may comment on a few quotes:
And he had a .920 OPS the year before we traded him anyway
His OPS+ over a three year span:
113, 108, 135
The average 1B in 1995
285/.362/.481.
They replaced his production with the Sorrento platoons, I really don’t see what the problem is.
A player who just came off a season like that is far more valuable than a 25 year old will-he-or-won’t-he SP with Command problems and 3B prospect who’s only getting hype because of the NY on his hat.
This is misleading.
Hitckcock, if he did have command problems (which I couldn’t confirm or refute either was w/o more data—his walk rate was certainly acceptable) certainly pitched well enough in 1995 to make himself a hot trade target.
Even though Davis was overhyped up coming through the Yankee system, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t a desirable trade target. I don’t have the Bill James book with me, but if I remember correctly his MLE for 1994 (his last full MiL season) was ~.260/.330/.430 based on a .276/.370/.538 line at Columbus. James also commented (again paraphrasing) that the end of 1994 Davis was better than at least 20% – 25% of the starting thirdbasmen in baseball. Remember, Davis’ glaring defensive problems didn’t start to surface until 1997.
Going by what was known at the time, I don’t see how anyone could think this was a bad trade based on baseball reasons. If Baker wrote something liek this we’d be all over him.
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Well I don't have the Bill James 1995 book so I am a bit guilty of having to just look at minor league and line stats before the trade happened.
Regardless, I liked Sorrento…so I have no issue with the production we got at 1B then. But really I just don’t see, looking at Hitchcock’s numbers before coming to us and his minor league numbers from the early 90s, why he would be such an attractive trade target.
Maybe Davis was a big prospect-I was too young to remember-but a .260/.330/.430 bat and a SP semi-prospect who was already 25 and was coming off a season with a 6.4 K/9 and a 3.63 BB/9, aslo giving up 22 HR in 168 innings should not be an attractive trade target. Especially considering he was going to the Kingdome. His walk rate improved with us but those ratios really aren’t good. A slightly above average 1B like Tino (and he had a few years that were way better than that, like the last year we had him) and two very good RPs should fetch more than a 6K, 3.6 BB guy who has trouble keeping the ball in the ballpark.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Jul 14, 2008 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
What you all seem to be forgetting about that trade is
It was the last of the Mariner Salary Dump trades. The M’s didn’t want to pay Tino or Nelson big money so they shipped them out for young and cheap labor.
On paper the trade looked okay at the time, but Woody caved and accepted Hitchcock instead of Pettite at the last minute.
Then like the idiot he was, Woody shipped Hitchcock out after one year for Scott Sanders. Sanders was terrible.
I hinted at that with the arb years comment.
I was a very Oakland-type move even if the FO didn’t really know what they were doing.
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Sanders was fucking awesome in 1996
I probably would have made that deal too.
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Sanders had never shown himself to be a starter
For a full season, so I guess I would disagree. He had a nice year, but only 16 starts.
and looking up the splits
he was pretty good as a starter that year too
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Flagged for shifting yourself
The Jose Lopez Watch - 113 H - 12 BB - 67 G Left
by seattlebruin on Jul 14, 2008 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
not to piss on Landing protocol...
...but, can’t we just agree this is a casual forum?...
i mean… it’s not like i’m typing a TPS report to my boss…
by oc on Jul 14, 2008 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Do what you like on LSB.
Around here, we appreciate capitalization, punctuation and intelligence.
by Kirsten Schlewitz on Jul 14, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions
So he's got you right where he wants you, then.
beware.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
...or 96 Sanders
which is why I believe we were picked to win the WS.
Add to that few decent freely available relief arms…
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Randy still would have been taken deep by
Jeff Reboulet in Game 1 versus the O’s. One of the worst days of my life.
We might not have faced the O's though.
To this day I hate Mike Mussina for that series.
Good point
I still hate Digger Phelps for telling the whole world Jamie Moyer was hurt when the team was trying to keep that info secret.
This thread is funny
because I know a billion times more about baseball than anyone I have met in real life, but I usually have nothing to add here because my knowledge is dwarfed by the mods; so discussing baseball in depth at LL feels (sort of ironically) strange.
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions
That's why I post at DRB so much.
It’s nice to feel smart every now and again.
by Aaron Campeau on Jul 14, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions
When we suck this is why I don't talk about baseball.
I have nothing at all to add. In real life, I can’t shut up about sports.
I don't mind being around people who know a shit-ton more than me
That said, it’s always interesting posting in forums where you know way more than anyone there, and you have to explain things that are common knowledge here.
and a SP semi-prospect who was already 25 and was coming off a season with a 6.4 K/9 and a 3.63 BB/9, aslo giving up 22 HR in 168 innings should not be an attractive trade target
Partially the NY hype machine, but Hitchcock was highly regarded too. You have to remember that 1995 AL was a much tougher league to pitch in than 2008 AL. He was a great guy to have before he got expensive.
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I know what was known at the time.
I understood why they needed and wanted to trade Martinez, as they really needed to clear salary and fill a hole or two in return. At the time, though, I was still pretty livid at the trade. Not so much because they were trading away Martinez and getting a SP in return. I just clearly remember them tossing in Nelson - not because they needed to do so to complete the trade, but rather because they saw him as a throw-in. I was far less livid that they traded Martinez - who was still somewhat young and up-and-coming himself, and actually well overshadowed by the “real” Martinez, nevermind Griffey and Buhner and RJ, etc. —than I was livid that they threw Nelson into the deal.
Nelson was - at that time - a hugely important piece to the M’s puzzle, and by giving him away in that deal, made the deal far, far, FAR worse both at the time and in retrospect. They absolutely didn’t need to include him in that trade to make it a balanced trade. Hitchcock (first-year SP, young, but an ~avg SP) + Davis (prospect) for an All-Star, youngish power-hitting 1B and a decently-rated pitching ‘spect in Mecir. Hitchcock was by no means proven at the time, and Davis, while somewhat highly-rated, wasn’t considered very special. It was definitely a fair trade without including Nelson…
My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11
by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Relievers just aren't that valuable and there's no way you could really expect him to duplicate 1995.
Just because the Mariners didn’t have the smarts to find a decent replacement doesn’t mean it was a bad idea to trade him (and no, objectively, Tino alone isn’t enough for Davis and Hitchcock). Again, if Baker had written something like this and started ranting about needing “proven” players we would jump all over him. Tino wasn’t special, Nelson wasn’t special, I don’t know why you would expect to get special players in return.
by JI on Jul 14, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
To generate trade value
They were probably hoping he’d hit a hot streak in order to get something for him. That way they wouldn’t feel as stupid for the original trade to aquire him.
...
...
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Jul 13, 2008 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
- Ask Alex: Will Alex Avila be an All-Star again?
- Create-a-Caption: Matt Cain’s great pair of golf pants
- Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries autographed ball being auctioned by Twins
- George Brett lawsuit claims his company falsely advertises ion necklaces’ health benefits
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
