M's & Jack Wilson Discussing M's & Jack Wilson
by Jeff Sullivan on Nov 6, 2009 1:17 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners News, Regular
Email
PrintDejan Kovacevic link, as mentioned in the comments:
Jack Wilson, the Pirates' shortstop most of this decade, is discussing a multiyear extension with Seattle that would keep him from becoming a free agent.
The Mariners are believed to have offered a two-year contract worth more than the two-year offer the Pirates made Wilson -- $8 million -- shortly before trading him July 29.
I don't know if JJ Hardy was ever on Z's radar, but now that he's off the table, Wilson's about as good a shortstop as this team's going to be able to get without surrendering something(s) of considerable value. So, rather predictably, the M's are seeing if they can extend him for a couple years for something below the $8.4m price of his 2010 option. While Kovacevic doesn't give us a number, mentioning only that it's worth more than $8m (total, not per year), I can't imagine Z would go beyond $10-12m, so that should be in the ballpark. Which...well, it's not amazing, but Wilson's a perfectly legitimate everyday shortstop, and Kenji Johjima's return home helped alleviate the budget problem a little bit. So provided Wilson re-signs for a reasonable price, which is the likelihood, then all things considered I'll be happy with it. Yay defense, and all that.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If it's two years, that's reasonable.
We don’t have anything in system that’s really going to be available before that.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/
Well, I was hoping we could do a little better than Jack Wilson at SS going into next year,
but considering what we’ve had at short over the past few years, it isn’t too awful bad.
NOW SIGN FELIX!
FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS! FUCK THE ANGELS!
Wilson
Jack is definitely the best option out there with Hardy off the table now. I’d expect a deal to get done in the near/immediate future
by eastcoastmariner on Nov 6, 2009 2:09 PM PST reply actions
Yeah
Feeling a lot like an inevitability
by Jeff Sullivan on Nov 6, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
Oops.
I meant to say, I’d take him at any of those.
Hmmm...
Not a big fan, but it’s a bargain if it’s less than $6 mil a year and it’s not like there’s anyone waiting in the wings.
I going to reveal my narrow-minded ways
And say that as a fan, I’m not looking forward to having a sub .300 wOBA everyday player in the lineup. According to Fangraphs, Wilson’s been worth the same amount over the last 4 years as Jose Lopez has. Would any projection system put him at over 2 wins for 2010?
I guess I’m just thinking about Dave’s article on how the M’s don’t have much utility to gain from low upside deals like this. Maybe in this market it’s just best the plug the hole at SS and swing for the fences at other positions.
All the people poo-pooing that Jack is 'only' a league average SS need to remember that we have no other viable candidate; we are probably going to be paying him a below-marked rate and he isn't that twat Monkey.
There is a four win difference between having Yuni at SS and Jack. Jack may not be exciting, but there are few above average SS around, so we should be happy with what we have.
I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.
by EnglishMariner on Nov 6, 2009 3:36 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
market^
I was at Shea for the Felix-Slam!
Personal M's record: 5-4.
by EnglishMariner on Nov 6, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
Why couldn't we platoon Josh Wilson and Hannahan?
You get maybe one less win, but save $4m.
by Manzanillos Cup on Nov 6, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
We're not really in a position to be giving up wins for money
With Johjima leaving, it freed up $8M worth of space but also downgraded our catcher position a bit. We need to get as many wins as we can at this point, and Wilson is by far the most viable, and accessible, league-average option at our disposal.
It makes sense.
Buying a win costs more than 4m on the free agent market.
So getting that win back elsewhere would arguably be more expensive, making that a net loss.
...and now I'm here
I'm pretty sure I'm wrong on this, I'm just not sure how.
Having Jack Wilson at short, gives you 1-1.5 marginal wins over playing Hannahan/Josh Wilson or whoever at the minimum at short. (I’m assuming we can get a little better than replacement level play from some sort of platoon like that.) Now if you get Jack for $4.5m a year, say, you are technically getting your moneys worth. But Jack Wilson has no upside. With the team the M’s have at this point, those marginal wins he gives you are pretty immaterial. Instead, you spend the money on a high risk, high reward player at another position. The worst that could happen is your high risk player busts and is worth nothing, and you lose those 1-1.5 wins Jack Wilson would have given you, and the team wins 78 games instead of 80.
by Manzanillos Cup on Nov 6, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
Basically what I'm saying is
That signing Jack Wilson to a deal like this wouldn’t be a bad move, but it’s not a move that has the potential to make us a whole lot better. Which is kinda what everyone is saying, sooo… yeah.
by Manzanillos Cup on Nov 6, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions
There's no real reason to 'risk' a Hannahan/JoshW platoon if we can lock up the SS position for about 2 wins a year
It’s a huge organizational hole, and it’s worth the $10-$12M over two years.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way.
An offensive-minded SS is not going to take us to a World Series. We’ll take his defense at a reasonable cost and upgrade offensively elsewhere. I would much rather have a defensive SS and fill the big bats at 3B, 1B, and DH.
Bottom line: signing Jack Wilson is an improvement over Yuni contained in one roster spot (Josh Wilson/Jack Hannahan take two spots).
It's not totally wrong, but it's not right either.
A few things to remember:
1) Jack Wilson does have 2 win upside, which is still valuable.
2) You don’t want your entire ballclub to be high risk players. You want some high risk players, and some stable players.
3) The value of the risk players goes down if you have to make up a win. So, for example, if you get a pitcher with a 5 win upside, but you are making up a win for Jack Wilson, then in a way the pitcher only has a 4 win upside, and at that point the risk is not as valuable.
Among other things. And again, both of those players you mentioned have their own risks, take up a roster spot, there’d be less depth, etc.
...and now I'm here
Yeah, I'm not going to argue my point any longer
I think your point about not having ALL high risk guys is really important. I think where all this was coming from is that I’m pretty skeptical about Jack Wilson’s ability to deliver 2 win seasons at this point. He’s in the AL now. He’s had two partial seasons in a row. It’s unlikely that he repeats his career-type defensive value of last year. And he’s not getting any younger. Zduriencik seems to love him though, so maybe he has some good years left in him.
by Manzanillos Cup on Nov 6, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions
I don't really like him at all.
But I can’t see a better option and I’d like to defer to Jack and the three guys that agree on everything on this one, since I don’t have a better idea of my own.
...and now I'm here
10-12 million would be great for Jack Wilson
But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they gave him somewhat north of that. Zduriencik seems to really like him a lot, and he is without doubt one of the best defensive shortstops in baseball.
by nathaniel dawson on Nov 6, 2009 4:08 PM PST reply actions
Wilson is worth more!
Check it out; (at Fangraphs) Jack Wilson had a 1.9 WAR last year, which is about his average for his entire career, that level of WAR is worth about $10M a year, not that he will get that much. That’s a 4 WAR upgrade from Betancourt last year. If the M’s can add that much improvement at catcher, 3B and LF they would be 16 winds better than 2009 which would have made their record 101-61. Wilson is part of the solution not part of the problem. GMZ knows what he’s doing.
It's not as easy to provide 4 win upgrades at those other positions, however
…as they did not perform at a level that was so far below replacement level, like our early-season shortstops did. For example, Beltre contributed 2+ wins in an injury plagued season, and Hannahan played above replacement level. A 4 win upgrade at 3B is a 6+ WAR player. It’ll be hard enough to bring in one premium talent like that, let alone at C and LF as well.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
