What to do with Jack Wilson?

by ElDuce on Sep 22, 2009 11:10 PM PDT Comment 78 comments

When Jack Wilson was acquired before the deadline it seemed like the idea was that he would help the team now and they would like to have him back to help for the future as well. At the time I believe there were even mentions of picking up his big option for next year at $8.4 million. Obviously things didn't really go well for the "now" portion. Wilson has been completely unable to hit in the AL West after not being particularly good in the easier NL Central (Ronny Cedeno's putting up about the same numbers Wilson did with the Pirates). His glove has been as good as advertised when he's been available, but the "when he's available" has become a huge area of concern.

With his latest injury shelving him for the year, Wilson's total games missed due to injury the past 3 seasons will top 150 games. At his age that's usually not something that a player is going to improve upon. Would it really be wise to try to lock him up for the future? Even if it's just for one year it doesn't seem like the best idea.

0 recs | Comment 78 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Locking him up for one year is a good idea

he’s a league average player with a small chance to have 3 win upside if he stays off the DL.

by Poochie on Sep 22, 2009 11:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That may turn out to be a big if - much like "Erik Bedard could be a consistent top of the rotation starter if he stayed off the DL"

That being said, I do agree with you and I think it’s worth taking that risk with Wilson

My Mariners blog - SodoMojo Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!

by gregrabble on Sep 22, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jack Wilson's fragility is nowhere near Erik Bedard's.

by Matthew on Sep 23, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I know, and that's why I think it's worth chancing

My Mariners blog - SodoMojo Twitter Feed, Fuck the fucking Angels!

by gregrabble on Sep 23, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but he fetches Erik Bedard for you if you're nice enough.

☊

by royalcurve on Sep 24, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So I made a WAR spreadsheet with all the players on it ones that we have locked up through next season.

No option players or anything.
Our biggest deficits are
CA: 1 WAR (Adam Moore / Rob Johnson)
1B: 0.9 WAR (Mike Carp / Bryan LaHair)
SS: 1.3 WAR (Jack Hannahan / Josh Wilson)
3B: 1.3 WAR (Matt Tuiasosopo / Bill Hall)
DH: .1 WAR (Brad Nelson / Bryan LaHair)
5th Starter: .7 WAR (Fister/Vargas/French)

Is Jack Wilson a big enough upgrade over Hannahan to command an $8.4 mil payment for 2010? I’m not sure about that, especially when we have such big holes to fill at DH and 1B first. We could get some impact bats at those positions with the money we would save by having Hannahan be our everyday SS.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 2:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't it thought that they were not going to exercise that option, but instead resign him to a longer contract for less money?

I thought that was the plan, but I do not remember why.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 3:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zduriencik strongly hinted that he would do this at the USSM/LL Meet-up on August 8th.

by Decatur on Sep 23, 2009 4:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, thank you, I knew it was mentioned somewhere, though I didn't attend that event.

Regardless, that changes things considerably. If it ended up being 3, 4, or 5 million for Wilson, the value is completely different.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 5:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a 99% chance it's not going to happen that way. How often has this organization tipped their hand about ANYTHING?

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's fair salary

But on the other hand, defense doesn’t go at fair market value, so they should be able tog et him for cheap assuming the don’t trade for Bartlett or Hardy.

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well as you can see, it's a fair salary but is the 1-win upgrade over Hannahan enough to pay him that salary?

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have no idea if Hannahan can play SS

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't he be able to?

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's never done it before, it was Dave Cameron's idea, and in the 11 innng SSS we have he's a -20 shortstop.

I’m sure he can play it fine, and the UZR is beyond meaningless, but there is literally zero proof that he can play the position.

From the article:

But I wouldn’t stop at using him at second base. I’m fairly sure he could play there without any real problems. His defensive skills make that an easy move. I’d challenge him a bit by sticking him at shortstop as well, and taking some time to evaluate whether or not he has the range to stick at the most demanding defensive position on the field. I think he just might.

Might. Not “can.” We have to assume he cannot until we know he can, otherwise we will be stuck with another gaping hole ala YuBet. There is a GOOD chance that he can, but you cannot simply assume he will for the purposes of figuring out next year’s team.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see any reason that a ++ range 3B couldn't be at least a -5 SS. What makes SS so much different that we have to ASSUME he "can't"

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because it is a different position that requires different skills.

It’s worth finding out, but it’s certainly not worth banking on.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah the numbers are different than actually putting the switch into practice

For example after being a plus SS, A-Rod got worse his first year at third in part (i think) because he has trouble charging slow rollers. Shortstop is more about range, third is more about reaction.

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He has a great DP rate and range rating as a 3B, I think he would be a great candidate to be a starting SS.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he were a great candidate I would think that he would have stuck at SS somewhere along the line.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weird shit happens. BJ Upton and Alfonso Soriano were middle infielders until the majors!

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alfonso Soriano is awful at defense and Upton stuck at 2B because it's (wrongly) seen as a more premium defensive position than CF.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But they were both awful defensively as MIs and obviously were better suited for the OF.

Players get miscast fairly often.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Generally they get miscast upwards.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hannahan is an odd case, isn't he?

Maybe he gained range as he progressed?

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's not that odd.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Basically what I am saying

is that I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of trying Hannahan at SS, but that he’s almost certainly not going to be equal to Wilson in value and that you’d better have a damned fine backup plan in place.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying he can't do it

I’m saying its more complicated than subtracting 9 points of UZR and calling it good.

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also a -5 shortstop with replacement level offense is not a 1.3 WAR player.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I put him at 0 defense and .300 wOBA.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Until he shows some proof that he can play defense I'd say you should keep it at -5.

And regardless, his ZiPS will probably be .285 or so given his history and age. He hasn’t hit anywhere near .300 since that short stint with the A’s in 2007 – not even in the minor leagues.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough. If that's true, then I am an advocate of spending most of our FA money on 1 year of Scutaro, rather than Wilson.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scutaro looks like a huge outlier, is older than Jack Wilson, and may very well be more expensive

If you going to go in a different direction than Wilson, you need to get a younger “SS of the future type”

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Being a huge outlier, he won't require more than a couple years and wouldn't cost that much more than Wilson.

He also has way more upside. Wilson’s not getting any better at SS and his bat has certainly been miserable.

But then again, I don’t think we’re going to compete next year. I can’t think of any way that we can be more than an 81 win team without trading prospects.
Of course, the best thing would be to trade for a younger player with a few years left that we can build on for the future, but it’s pretty impossible to predict what kind of deal it would take to bring back one of those guys. Maybe the best idea is just to take Wilson’s contract extension and ride him out next year and see what SS possibilities pop up next season.

I think signing Wilson long-term is a bad idea. I think we can compete in 2011, but if we lock up Wilson then that’s resources we have tied up that might be used better elsewhere.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"He also has way more upside. Wilson’s not getting any better at SS and his bat has certainly been miserable."

Scutaro is two years older than Wilson. Wilson has a track record of being a league-average to slightly-above player while Scutaro has massive outliers at the end of his career.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, so Scutaro's outliers are a mark of his pretty great upside.

Wilson’s upside is a 2.5 win player.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, it's closer to 3-3.5

and your entire case for Scutaro seems to be based on his being a safer bet.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think taking a safe bet is stupid because we're not close enough to being a playoff contender to bet on "safe" guys.

And how the hell do you get Jack Wilson to 3 wins?

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He projects at 2 wins injured.

Healthy for a whole year would be a 3 win upside.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if he hits like 2007 but fields like 2008!

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Holy shit he'd be worth 5 wins!

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then he's Adrian Beltre 2006.

And the whole world will implode.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's his upside.

It’s not likely, but it’s possible in the same way that Hannahan being much above replacement level at SS is possible.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's unrealistic.

Hannahan being a 1 WAR player is a lot more realistic.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wizzle wozzle

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Wilson’s not getting any better at SS and his bat has certainly been miserable.

The two highest UZR/150s he posted have been from this and last season

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes but you're forgetting that Scutaro isn't as likely to decline defensively because he is young-oh wait nevermind.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He has upside, dumbass.

by abender20 on Sep 24, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to add that I am not against Hannahan at Shortstop

But only after we know he can stick there. I don’t particularly care about Jack Wilson but at the moment I am not positive we have an option that will work.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well the way I see it, Josh Wilson isn't an awful fallback.

If we spend our FA money elsewhere, having a replacement level SS and a guy who can back him up (Hall) isn’t a bad position to be in.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, a replacement level SS is never an awful fallback.

But…. I mean… any replacement level shortstop is a decent fallback.

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But we know that Wilson is league average at a position it's fairly difficult to find league average players

and it is entirely possible that Hannahan is below league average.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Hannahan's best case upside is what we would normally expect from Wilson

by Poochie on Sep 23, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which is why you don't pick up his option.

But extending him is fine.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think extending him is a good idea because it ties up money beyond next season.

Next season isn’t a competing one, so why spend money on seasons past that for the sake of next season?

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tying up people is how you contend in the future, otherwise all of your valuable players would be walking every year and you'd never rebuild.

And if it is not at much cost, why not?

...and now I'm here

by Librocrat on Sep 23, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he takes an extra million or two spread out over two years instead of one

that frees up payroll flexibility in 2011 and fills a need all at the same time.

Also I disagree that next year isn’t a competing year. It’s far too early to know that.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2011 Jack Hannahan doesn't strike me as a championship cornerstone.

And I don’t know how you can get us above .500 without trading minor leaguers, I’d like to hear your reasoning that we can compete next year.

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't have to have championship cornerstones at every position.

There are definite ways to improve this team, but I’m not going to get into specifics. I just know that the front office we have in place is capable of upgrading the roster and that it’s silly to swear off competing before 2009 is even over. There are plenty of directions they can go, and I am not willing to say that 2010 is a lost season and we ought to dump an asset because we’re a .500 team this season.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jack Wilson isn't an asset.

He’s a FA next season unless we keep him on a reasonable 1 year deal. That’s not exactly an “asset.”

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes it is.

He’ll probably be worth his contract, at a premium position, even if his option is picked up. The more likely scenario is that he’s extended at below market rates. A below-market-rate contract is an asset.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What makes you think we can extend him at below-market rates?

What’s keeping him from hitting the FA market?
Why don’t you assume we can extend Beltre or Branyan at below-market rates, too?

by lailaihei on Sep 23, 2009 11:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel fairly confident that we can extend Branyan at below market rates.

I don’t think it’s likely in Beltre’s case because he’ll either be looking for a long-terms deal or a one-year-deal designed to recoup some market value and he’s smart enough to know that Safeco is a bad place to try and recoup market value.

I think that it’s likely in Wilson’s case because defense is undervalued, he seems to really like Seattle and he’s probably going to be more interested in a two or three year deal than a one year rent-a-player type deal.

by acblue on Sep 23, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs