A Thought
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:02 PM PDT
in Miscellaneous
84 comments
Jack Wilson, 31, is an exemplary defensive shortstop. He is very clearly comfortable at his position, and according to the numbers we have, he's probably worth 5 or 10 runs above average in the field. He doesn't, however, have much of a bat, with a career wOBA of .298 and a ZiPS projection of .294.
Jack Hannahan, 29, is an examplary defensive third baseman. He is very clearly comfortable at his position, and according to the numbers we have, he's probably worth 10 or 15 runs above average in the field. Recently he's begun taking balls in the middle infield and getting some time at short, where last night he made a sensational diving stop to his left. The positional adjustment we have for moving from 3B to SS is worth about five runs, and there's little reason to believe that Hannahan won't be able to handle the change. He doesn't, however, have much of a bat, with a career wOBA of .298 and a ZiPS projection of .306.
0 recs |
84 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
That's what you get for not wearing your tinfoil hat.
angels fan in seattle
by Eyebrows on Aug 13, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Platoon!
Not that a platoon would do much to increase the value of the two I suspect. Wait, let me check…
Jack Wilson: .670 OPS v RHP, .744 v LHP
Jack Hannahan: .641 OPS v LHP, .675 v RHP
So maybe a platoon of the two gets you up to like a .310-.315 wOBA?
Anyway, the thought of a Jack and Jack platoon tickles me.
by Matthew on Aug 13, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I feel like it would be stupid to pay Jack Wilson as much money as he's going to get to be part of a platoon
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In fact I'm beginning to feel like it would be stupid to pay Jack Wilson as much money as he's going to get
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luckily, I think it's only going to be "stupid" because we have a good proxy for him.
I do think Jack Wilson is going to end up being worth his contract on fair value.
For instance, he’s already been worth 8.4M this season, was 7.1M last year and over 10M in 07.
by Matthew on Aug 13, 2009 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
At first glance though, it just appears that the money going to Wilson could be better spent elsewhere, given the resources we already have.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happens if Hannahan gets hurt?
There is no depth in the MIF in the org.
by CMC_Stags on Aug 13, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not like utility MIF players are hard to come by
I mean, Woodward, Hannahan, Wilson (Josh) were all acquired for very little. At some point you do want to start getting good bats to play the infield but having a backup is not something to be overly concerned about.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outside of Hannahan
They all suck. And Oakland obviously wasn’t valuing him as a MIF.
by CMC_Stags on Aug 13, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hannahan is not all that much better than those guys
maybe ten or fifteen runs at most over a full season of play, but since we’re talking about a fraction of that, as a utility player there is a five run difference at most. And players like Bill Hall, Everett, Punto or McDonald are usually available.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
I guess the counters to that are:
A) Putting Hanners at SS does mean we’d still need a MIF backup for next season.
B) Wilson has a longer track record than Hanners
C) The FO seems to like other things about Wilson
D) Trust the FO?
by Matthew on Aug 13, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Trust the Front Office" almost rhymes with "Trust the Process"
But, yes, I too will gladly be LLemminged by bLLengino.
by Decatur on Aug 13, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the way Zduriencik talked about Wilson on Saturday, I got the sense he might decline Wilson's option and sign him to a cheaper two-year deal.
by Decatur on Aug 13, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that what the Pirates tried doing?
by Wilder. on Aug 13, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought most people believed they were just posturing to try to raise his value on the trade market.
But I might be wrong on that.
by Decatur on Aug 13, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they were just posturing to the fans and the players on the team.
They had no intention of re-signing Wilson.
by Wilder. on Aug 13, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They used the words "retire as a Mariner" in sequence at one point
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...in 2013?
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...after a year as a utility player?
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note: Ken Griffey is also likely to retire as a Mariner.
So, Zduriencik is planning on bringing Wilson back for a farewell season in 2015 as a gift to Seattle fans delighted by his notYuniness.
by Matthew on Aug 13, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See, I wouldn't mind having Wilson around for a few more years if he can keep up doing what he does in the field.
It’s not like shortstop has been an offensive boon for this team the last few years and we don’t exactly have a shortstop on the verge of breaking into the majors. But is it realistic to believe Wilson will continue to be a defensive whiz in the field to justify a contract size he is likely to receive ($6-7 million/year)?
by Wilder. on Aug 13, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a whiz necessarily, but he's got a ways to go before he's a problem in the field.
by acblue on Aug 13, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Compared to what we've been through the last few seasons,
Wilson will be in his grave before he becomes a problem in the field.
by Wilder. on Aug 13, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He'll still have more range than Yuni.
But his arm strength will take a nose dive.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Aug 13, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jack-Jack Attack?
With all due apologies to Pixar, of course
by Tube on Aug 13, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He even looks like Jack Wilson!!!
Just needs half his face to melt a little.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Aug 13, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What about Hannahan at second?
Of course, if Beltre leaves, the need for another 3B is pretty minimal with Hannahan around in my opinion. Beefing up the bats at C and DH strike me as much more important than at 3B and SS
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \\ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 13, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you can get something neat for Lopez though...
by acblue on Aug 13, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, this is the only situation where I'd put Hannahan at 2B, but I think it's a good option to have.
Also, Hannahan as a Chris Woodward-with-talent super-utility type player could be valuable. We might have another Craig Counsell on our hands here.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 13, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, that would also be a way to go
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who needs a 2B though?
there seems to be an excess of pretty good to real good hitting 2B around the league
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're not touching the catcher position
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When is Adam Moore supposed to be ready?
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 13, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He'll be up at or around the beginning of next season to job share with RJ
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you're saying is
I’ll hate Rob Johnson even more next year.
by Jeff Nye on Aug 13, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I didn't necessarily mean beefing up the position through FA.
I mean, if Moore hits at league average levels (expecting a lot, I know) it would be an incredible boost to this lineup.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 13, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For all the talk about Moore's bat
Moore at 25 in AAA: .340 wOBA
Johnson at 25 in AAA: .349 wOBA
Moore’s got the much more impressive career stats, though park effects and ARL complicate the picture slightly. Moore had a monster ‘08 at age 24 in AA, but Johnson never played AA ball – skipped to AAA at 23.
The point of this isn’t so much that Moore can’t hit or that Johnson is awesome, it’s that I think people expect a lot from Moore simply because he’s a catching prospect that isn’t Rob Johnson.
by marc w on Aug 13, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well shit.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that's why the ARL stuff is complicated and I'm not making some definitive point here
There’s no right or wrong way to weigh these variables. Do you dock Johnson for repeating (it was technically his 3rd stint in AAA)? Or do you credit him for making it there at 23 and skipping AA altogether?
Do you knock Moore for a declining ISO, or is that natural given the parks/leagues he was moving through? Do you knock Johnson for a pathetic ISO, or credit him for the upward trend line?
by marc w on Aug 13, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeff Clement has 20 home runs this year
by Graham on Aug 13, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We also haven't seen Moore's ability to catch and block pitches.
While I haven’t heard exceptional things, Rob Johnson lowers my threshold for satisfaction.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
YOU haven't.
He’s not a guy who’s going to be stellar at blocking the plate. He gave up 23 PBs last year in 107 AA games, and is still working on his defense now. It’s a work in progress; if you’re looking for an instant, clear improvement in CS% or PBs or something, Moore’s not your guy. The total package has a bigger upside, but….
by marc w on Aug 13, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this...
And even as Moore’s biggest non-organizational fanboy, I recognize that he has…limitations.
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Aug 13, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IOW...
It pains me to say that RIGHT NOW Rob Johnson is a better MLB catcher than Adam Moore would be. I wouldn’t call up Moore until mid-2010, myself. If Joh’s indeed gone after this season (oh please oh please oh please) I’d give Jamie Burke first dibs at being the backup to start the season. I’d rather have Moore catching ~every day in AAA for half a season than once a week in the bigs.
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Aug 13, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the word on Bill Hall?
He looks like the perfect ~freely available platoon mate for Hannahan in 2010 (and he’s been an above average 3B, SS, and CF in recent years). Do you, as a Brewers fan guy, have any additional insight on why he’s been so bad or what he would cost?
by Decatur on Aug 13, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's tried to change his approach from a power hitter to a contact hitter since that 35 HR season
He just can’t do it. He never could hit right handed pitchers, but then it got even worse when he stopped taking walks and tried to make more contact (walk rates went from 10.5% to around 8%), and the 19.4% HR/FB in 2006 was surely unsustainable. I think he could function pretty well as the left-handed part of a platoon, but mentally, he really doesn’t seem suited to taking multiple days off. He’s going to strike out over 30% of the time, and LASIK obviously wasn’t the solution to that. He still has power, and he can still field quite well, and he could play both infield and outfield. He’ll get on base at a roughly .310 clip if you’re lucky, though, and probably not even that.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 13, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, I was a HUGE Bill Hall fan. I really thought he could be a franchise cornerstone along with Braun and Fielder.
Just wasn’t to be.
---
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com \ twitter
by Jack Moore on Aug 13, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its an idea, but I think this is going a little too far too fast.
Beltre has been in the 10-20 range since forever but I’m fairly certain he would be in trouble at SS long term. I love the idea of Hannahan as a utility player, and like his approach enough to want to see him in the lineup more often than Woodward for example, but I imagine we’d be disappointed with his play at SS in the long run.
Woodward, incidentally, made some phenomenal plays at third in the early going if I remember right, but then went right back to being meh.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But if the overall point you're making is that we'll be paying Wilson too much next year I cant argue
last winter we saw Everett sign for a lot less, Punto is being paid half as much I think, and Orlando Cabrera is paid about the same but is supposed to hit better. So yeah.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Beltre was just too established to think about moving around
Hannahan’s ripe for the…messing around with?
I’m certain he could be at least league-average, at which point it just becomes an issue of wear and tear and durability.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo
Reflexes, quickness and arm being perhaps equal between Hannahan and Wilson, my guess is Wilson is simply the better natural athlete. A guy who hits as little as Hannahan does would have stuck at SS if he could, wouldn’t he (I know, terrible argument but nevertheless)?
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the way, the point of this post isn't necessarily that I'd slot Hannahan in at short and punt Wilson
It’s more that, hey, look how much value we found for nothing.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure Oakland fans still think we're crazy for putting any value in Hannahan.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They may also be wondering why they traded for Souza, however.
28 RA in 20 IP or something? Guy’s getting annihilated so far.
by marc w on Aug 13, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Skimming the conversations it seems like Hannahan isn't getting much consideration at third.
Why is that?
by Nate Dogg on Aug 13, 2009 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think most of us just love the idea of having a super-utility guy again
and Hannahan fills that role much better than as a regular 3B. That being said, he wouldn’t be the worst option out there if we can’t retain Beltre, but I’d like to find someone with a bit more offense.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Platooning him there with Tui seems like a good way to get Tui's feet wet
but I’ll say right now I don’t know how much of a prospect Tui is, only that the management seemed to be besotted of him.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He seems to strike out a lot for a guy who doesn't have exceptional power.
He put up decent offensive numbers in AAA last year when he was only 22, but his defense is definitely a problem.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At 22 though, we would expect his power to increase
Even if his strikeouts don’t improve. You figure he bumps up his HR numbers slightly and the bat gets better very very fast.
by Andersean on Aug 13, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but if he's relegated to the OF, as seems likely
I can’t see him winning a job from Saunders and I can’t see him outperforming Ackley once he signs.
FUCK THE ANGELS!
by Fuckmikereilly on Aug 13, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(A) It seems the organization likes him more as a super utility guy
(B) They probably want Beltre back
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 13, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His bat
I think the assumption is that we can find someone to play plus defense and hit much better than Hannahan. Our expectations for SS however, have been falling through the floor for a couple of years.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Aug 13, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
Related FanShots on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Fernando Perez talks about playing baseball from the poorhouse
- Spring Snapshot: Brewers aim for more of '08, less of '09
- Giants legend Willie McCovey talks Panda, Dodgers and his Cove
- Photo: Gaylord Perry 'lobbies' Bud Selig to repeal spitball ban
- Spring Snapshot: Led by Tiny Tim, Giants making playoff push
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
