Full of Hitting Depth
Ryan Langerhans, Bill Hall, Michael Saunders, Jack Hannahan, Ken Griffey Jr., Mike Carp and Matt Tuiasosopo. Those are the people currently on the 40-man roster who profile as bench bats or a starter at designated hitter, first base or left field for 2010. That's seven names for six spots (the three starting jobs plus three bench roles) and that's before we sign anyone else. Heaven forbid those are the seven Don Wakamatsu has to pick from for those last six spots come end of Spring Training.
Here is where I would love to throw in some clear facts on which players have options remaining, but MLB's player option rules are murkier than lead and so the best I can do are educated guesses. Langerhans, Hall, Hannahan and Griffey are out of options while it appears that Saunders, Carp and Tuiasosopo all have two options remaining.
If the Mariners add two more bats in the DH/1B mold (say Nick Johnson and Russell Branyan), then clearly Carp
and Tui head back to Tacoma. However, that still leaves seven players for six spots. The consensus so far has been that Saunders is penciled in as the starting left fielder and thus Ryan Langerhans would appear to be the odd man out, a victim of a overprotective seven-men bullpen. I wonder though, given Saunders struggles in his Seattle showcase, and the roster situation, would it not make more sense to send Saunders back to Tacoma, he only has 387 PAs at the Triple-A level after all, and start the season with a Langerhans/Hall platoon in left field?
If the team only adds one more hitter, then this is moot, but given that it appears the team considers neither first base nor designated hitter filled, it seems an interesting discussion to be had, one with reasonable arguments on multiple sides.
It is also a key discussion no matter where the second hitter is added. If the team did manage to sign Adrian Beltre, and held onto Jose Lopez, then Chone Figgins would get moved to left field and Michael Saunders demoted. Or if the team inked Mike Cameron, same result for Saunders. In either case a lock for the team replaces one of your optionable players and takes a roster spot up, once again forcing you into a two spots for three guys decision.
0 recs |
46 comments
|
Comments
A tough situation, but preferable to too little of options.
I think that it might be the best bet sending Saunders down, based upon his performance from last year.
What is so hard about cutting Hall?
Bill Hall shouldn’t even be considered an option. He should be cut already. And please, leave the versatility argument behind: dude is only getting older and fatter.
2009 WAR, -0.3, worth $-1.5M.
Hasta. Luego.
He was also injured and played sporadically.
Cutting him would be really dumb.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 8, 2009 9:14 PM PST up reply actions
Being a Brewers fan doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the truth.
Dumping him would be silly.
by Aaron Campeau on Dec 8, 2009 9:40 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Not necessarily...
If Beltre is re-signed and they don’t trade Lopez, with Figgins on the roster, Bill Hall becomes completely expendable.
I’d rather have Han’ und ‘Hans myself, even if they don’t sign another player and have to release someone…
SHOW FiFi THE MONEY!!!!
by PositivePaul on Dec 8, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
Use proper capitalization please
and try to consider more than one season before coming to conclusions. It will do your arguments a good service.
Aren't we stuck with paying a chunk of his salary this season?
Regardless of whether or not we keep him? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. If so there’s no reason to let him go.
Versatility made Willie better, too
it’s just that he was such an atrocious hitter in the first place that it didn’t matter in the least
I don't like Figgins playing SS at all.
Hannahan I guess is okay as a backup, but we really don’t know that for sure. Hall actually played the position well at one point in his career so I think he needs to stick for no other reason than that.
I'd be more worried about it if the team wasn't set on the starting SS heading into the season.
I’d rather let let Hannahan or Figgins shift over once in a long while than carry Josh Wilson all year just to have a backup with SS next to their name.
I agree with that reasoning. My thinking is more what happenis if Jack gets hurt.
I’m not interested in seeing either Chone or Hannahan at SS for 2 weeks.
I'd send down Saunders...
but primarily because his Tacoma splits versus left-handers were pretty bad last season and it couldn’t hurt to have him work on that.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/marinersminors/
Based on the context of the picture you used, this log jam can only be a good thing.
The Yankees suck-a-doodle-doo!
There also happen to be 7 of them
I think the large blue one in the bottom left represents Griffdawg
by JLC on Dec 8, 2009 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
Saunders to AAA
I like him a lot, but there are a lot of reasons why that would make the most sense. You can start out with a primarily Hall/Langerhans platoon in left that would give you as much or more production than you would expect from Saunders right now. He got to see Major League pitching for the first time last season, looked overmatched, and certainly identified some areas that he needs to work on. He would probably benefit from more time in AAA to work on his game. This is an age-old method of transitioning a young player into full-time play in the majors.
There’s another thing to keep in mind as well. Teams are beginning to realize how valuable and important good, cheap club control players are to a team’s ability to put a winning team on the field within their budget. To get the most out of them, they want them to be as ready as possible before starting their service clock. If Saunders plays a couple months down in Tacoma, it delays his service clock another year, and they get one more year of that good, cheap play. I’d rather his first full year be next year, at the age of 24 when he’s further along, rather than this year. They’d basically be trading his age 23 season for his age 29 season, when in all likelihood he’ll be a better player.
He’ll still get his chances to play this year, but we wouldn’t have to rely on him to be the full-time starter.
by nathaniel dawson on Dec 8, 2009 9:44 PM PST reply actions
And I forgot to mention
It also means that we get to keep Langerhans on the roster.
by nathaniel dawson on Dec 8, 2009 9:52 PM PST reply actions
Spring training is going to be Saunders' opportunity to beat out Langerhans for a roster spot.
If he does, it will be interesting to see if Langerhans accepts a designation for assignment or not.
It's certainly possible...
And something a lot of people in the Mariner community have overlooked.
It’s not like 28 other teams were beating down the Nationals door for him, and it’s not like defense has suddenly started to be valued around the league, and Langerhans offensive contributions weren’t so great either.
Certainly some team might take a flyer on him, but I doubt he gets any more then a minor-league contract.
At that time of year a lot of teams are looking for patch-players though
so I’d fully expect he gets claimed off waivers as a fill-in outfielder for a few weeks for some other team
Determined, Jonesing Commentor | Proud proprietor of Wyomingroutes.org & Washingtonhighways.org
I will fly the Langerhans flag as hard and as long as I can. Guy hit two walk-off homers in his short time with the team last season.
no lead is safe.
by sanford_and_son on Dec 9, 2009 10:38 AM PST reply actions
I also have a man crush on Langerhans.
by killer_ewok18 on Dec 9, 2009 10:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Wait, you said long and hard...
by killer_ewok18 on Dec 9, 2009 10:34 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yes, yes I did. N/H.
no lead is safe.
by sanford_and_son on Dec 10, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
Also, what are everyone's thoughts on signing Cameron again? I can't decide if it would be a good idea at this point in his career.
no lead is safe.
by sanford_and_son on Dec 9, 2009 10:47 AM PST reply actions

by 

















