Lookout Landing: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB postseason scores, schedules and blog coverage Bar-right-arrows

Churchill is saying Vidro may be gone.

Tiny by CstSnow on

Over 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.

 

0 recs | Comment 124 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

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 to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Jed MC on Jul 14, 2008 12:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

Ho' for So' was worse.

My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11

by PositivePaul on Jul 13, 2008 7:43 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Teej on Jul 13, 2008 11:14 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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?

by Matthew on Jul 14, 2008 8:19 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by marc w on Jul 14, 2008 8:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Gomez on Jul 14, 2008 8:53 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by BrianL on Jul 14, 2008 8:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, yes

The general RP for SP idea is at least defensible in theory.

by Gomez on Jul 14, 2008 9:02 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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.

by marc w on Jul 14, 2008 9:02 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Gomez on Jul 14, 2008 9:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Matthew on Jul 14, 2008 10:20 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by marc w on Jul 14, 2008 10:30 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

To me, no.

The theory going in and the execution coming out are completely distinct in my mind.

by Matthew on Jul 14, 2008 10:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by jullberg on Jul 14, 2008 3:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ThundaPC on Jul 15, 2008 1:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Gomez on Jul 15, 2008 11:23 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Matthew on Jul 14, 2008 10:54 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ehh

Bear in mind it was widely believed that HoRam as going to be released anyway by the Braves. Calls the concept into question.

by Paytheline on Jul 14, 2008 11:02 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Calls what concept into question?

I don’t see how it disagrees with anything I’ve said.

by Matthew on Jul 14, 2008 11:08 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by marc w on Jul 14, 2008 11:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Matthew on Jul 14, 2008 11:08 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by marc w on Jul 14, 2008 11:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Trading injury prone reliever for young starting pitcher = good

they just have no idea how to evaluate pitching talent

by JI on Jul 14, 2008 11:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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

by rfloh on Jul 14, 2008 12:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, that's one of many problems.

If they’d called him a 1B or a RF, the major issues would remain.

by marc w on Jul 14, 2008 1:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I believe his theory

was that the team needed a #2 hitter and that Vidro fit the bill.

by johnbai on Jul 14, 2008 2:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by marc w on Jul 14, 2008 4:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Varitek + Lowe for Slocumb?

pretty sure thats worse

--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog

by Addicted to Quack on Jul 13, 2008 8:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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.”

by BrianL on Jul 14, 2008 8:36 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by katal on Jul 14, 2008 10:11 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

I'll take a Double Martinez, please!

My layout.spellcheckDefault goes to 11

by PositivePaul on Jul 14, 2008 9:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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.

by JI on Jul 14, 2008 10:25 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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)

by JI on Jul 14, 2008 11:23 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   1 recs

Why did you include stats happening after the trade?

They’re meaningless as far as evaluating the trade itself.

by Matthew on Jul 14, 2008 12:43 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Sec 108 on Jul 14, 2008 3:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

Sanders was fucking awesome in 1996

I probably would have made that deal too.

by JI on Jul 14, 2008 3:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by Sec 108 on Jul 14, 2008 3:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs