Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Josh Hamilton's Unique Public Statement On His Addiction

Thoughts on the Roster

With yesterday's Ryan Garko signing, the roster's looking pretty crowded. Check it out:

Figure 1: Estimate of the Mariners current roster. Green shade: left-handed; blue: switch; red: unknown.

Blue for switch hitters, green for left handed hitters/pitchers. Red for anyone who's not definitely on the roster right now (I have no idea who out of Moore, Johnson, and Bard will be dropped, for example). First thing to note, of course, is that barring surprises we will be going with an eleven man pitching staff. This is a pretty big deal, but it's facilitated by having an extremely strong top of the rotation. Lee and Felix should be able to ease up some of the pressure on the bullpen, allowing for the possibility of using six guys in there as opposed to our customary seven.

Furthermore, the composition of the guys in the mixer for the last bullpen spot helps out too. We have an absolute wealth of back-of-the-rotation guys, most of whom are left-handed. We also have Nick Hill, another lefty, who could be a not-awful swingman right now. This means that (assuming Sean White is broken and not going to be back), we will have two guys in the bullpen with enough durability to throw a few innings without exploding or anything. The only worry is that we're not going to be able to mix and match to exploit platoon splits in the late innings, but compared to the benefits of us going to a five-man bench, that's not that significant.

It's a good thing, too, because the presence of Ken Griffey Junior at DH (even if you believe he'll be starting, you have to accept a platoon) breaks the four man bench. If we think of the 'typical' bench as a backup catcher and a bunch of utility players, ours must accommodate a player who can't do anything but hit. Going with a four-man bench means that you have a catcher, a DH, and just two utility guys to cover for everyone else. This is a problem for a team as prone to being as banged up as ours. In essence, by going to an eleven-man staff, we're just getting our fourth bench spot back.

With this said, there are a number of secondary comments I'd make which could alter all of the above. When Garko was signed, it immediately 'felt' to me that there were too many outfielders and not enough infielders on the roster, and I wondered whether Langerhans might be better off being replaced with Matt Tuiasosopo. This essentially replaces a spare outfielder with a spare infielder, which seems like things are more balanced. Langerhans's contract permits this, but he has to be put through waivers to get to Tacoma as far as I know. Unfortunately, this system is flawed in that it essentially forces Milton Bradley into the field more often. My uninformed feeling is that Griffey is the home DH against RHP, with Bradley playing left. Away, with Langerhans on the roster, Bradley is the DH against everyone, with a Langerhans/Byrnes platoon in left. This doesn't work without another left-handed outfielder, and I'm strongly in favour of restricting Bradley's outfield time (and Griffey's anything time).

Another interesting idea is to use Garko as the second catcher. This free us up to go back to a twelve-man staff or to add a Tui-type player as the second backup infielder. We'd also be able to put up some relatively potent lineups out there when we need offence the most. After all, Garko has significant playing time behind the plate in the minor leagues, all the way up to AAA. The problem? Garko hasn't caught regularly for a few years, and it's questionable as to whether he could handle quasi-regular duties behind the plate. It would also stop him being used as a pinch-hitter, which isn't as big a problem as one might think given Wakamatsu's pinch hitting tendencies (or lack thereof). This is something the Mariners might consider playing with in the spring, but it's unlikely that it works. It'd be a really neat little scenario if it pans out though.

And honestly, I think that's the only real way we go back to a twelve-man staff. If a starter gets hurt on a road trip and we face a couple of lefties, we're boned with the four-man bench. I think Griffey really tilts the balance in the favour of having six bullpen arms, and with the personnel we have in the pitching corps, it makes pretty good sense. Although Figgins can fill pretty much anywhere in in case of emergency (our set of position players is bizarrely versatile, which could be a full length post in its own right), we're seemingly better off going light on the bullpen, at least to start.

Comment 203 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I'm not sure

He had a good amount of time behind the plate, but he can’t throw guys out. They’re going to be evaluating him in spring training though.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 2, 2010 8:03 PM PST up reply actions  

I like that they are taking a look.

If he could actually play the position it would be pretty awesome.

by Poochie on Feb 2, 2010 8:04 PM PST up reply actions  

totally agree, i was looking forward to the m’s to replace kenji leaving. Rob Johnson is terrible, and with the outstanding rotation we have, we should support them with a decent-good catcher. I would assume that it was part of the agreement when Garko signed to be a catcher, otherwise signing Kotchman and Garko makes little since. I understand right/left hand balance for the lineup, but why not fix the problems we know we have…. aka Rob Johnson….

by mariseanerhawk on Feb 5, 2010 12:55 AM PST up reply actions  

He can work on it

all spring and into mid-summer. If we temporary lose one traditional catcher day-to-day or even a week, he’ll be good enough we wont need to make a roster move

by crushingyourhead on Feb 2, 2010 9:27 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm skeptical

He’s a good hitter, but not much of a defensive player elswhere. If he was even passable behind the plate, Cleveland never would have moved him off of it.

by nathaniel dawson on Feb 2, 2010 9:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Except he was stuck behind Victor Martinez.

Moving him to first was seen as the quicker path to the big leagues.

by I Lick Squirrels on Feb 2, 2010 9:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, but.......

I’ve got the feeling there was more to it than that. Teams just don’t move good hitting catchers that can field well off the position. They have them split time as the backup and play other positions as well. As long as he can field adequately, there is simply too much value in a good hitting catcher to permanently move him off the position.

by nathaniel dawson on Feb 2, 2010 11:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Bear in mind, though

that we don’t really have a good handle on catcher fielding; a lot of times, teams seem to focus on the throwing arm, and if a guy can’t throw out runners, he gets moved even if he doesn’t have an established starter in front of him.

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 3, 2010 6:56 AM PST up reply actions  

Ehh, screwed up the tags

In any case, I gather Garko had a pretty good rep as a catcher in college; from what Graham said above, I would assume it was his throwing arm that was the Indians’ problem. (Otherwise, given that Martinez was no GG behind the plate, they might well have done a C/1B job share between them.) For right now, let’s just wait and see what we see.

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 3, 2010 6:59 AM PST up reply actions  

What we don't have a good handle on

is how to quantify catcher defense.

That doesn’t mean baseball teams don’t have a good handle on how to evaluate it. He’s going to have a chance to show the Mariners what level of ability he has there — but it would surprise me if they decide to use him as their sole backup at the position.

by nathaniel dawson on Feb 3, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Good stuff. I'm really interested to see what they end up going with.

I’m thinking Langerhans gets that last spot. Otherwise they’ve gotta go with Byrnes against RHP on days when Bradley’s unavailable, and that could end up being fairly often.

My Mariners blog SodoMojo, My Twitter Feed

by Griffin Cooper on Feb 2, 2010 8:11 PM PST reply actions  

The way he pitched last season

I wouldn’t be surprised if a bad showing got him booted from the rotation

by Poochie on Feb 2, 2010 8:15 PM PST up reply actions  

I thought they would look to Snell as #4 and French as 5… sure neither have been overly impressive thus far, but not every pitcher is a felix, some need time…who else are we going to put in there? If they sign Bedard, you have him 3 then Rowland-Smith 4, so either way one of the two are looking to be number 5.

by mariseanerhawk on Feb 5, 2010 12:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Did you mean

Langerhans/Byrnes platoon in left? Ichiro didn’t move positions again did he?

by brinkislikevickheabusesdawgs on Feb 2, 2010 8:25 PM PST reply actions  

It was a natural mistake

He’s from the other side of the pond, they drive on the opposite side of the road over there.

by nathaniel dawson on Feb 2, 2010 8:47 PM PST up reply actions  

This is a good peice, and I LOVE the Ichiro swing picture in the background.

However, you need to make some adjustments before you can make such lofty claims. It would help to consult the best Mariners blog for a start.

Don’t take this the wrong way – I love work like this and I think this is a good start. However, you need to spend a lot more time on considering the possibility of Griffey being our swing man the data for it to be of any use. It just depends on how much time you want to spend on studying this lineup…

Hey everyone, Follow me on Twitter!, check out My Baseball Blog, and Last.fm me!

by lailaihei on Feb 2, 2010 8:31 PM PST reply actions   3 recs

Agree

it’s clearly high time that we start some kind of process to weed out front page material at LL, maybe something where a group of experts in the field review the material to determine its worthiness. This way we ensure that all variables are taken into account, and not just lazily ignored. But this was a good try.

by Snuffleupagus on Feb 2, 2010 10:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks Graham

Good stuff. You definitely know your baseball. Out of curiosity, how did an Englishman become so well versed in America’s pastime? Do you follow the EPL too?

by Bohawk on Feb 2, 2010 8:34 PM PST via mobile reply actions  

I've lived in the Pacific Northwest off and on since 1996. Baseball is interesting.

And yes, I follow the Premier League. After yesterday I don’t want to talk about it for a while.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 8:40 AM PST up reply actions  

Chelsea fan? I can't believe they didn't get a result against Hull City. Hull City?

With Man U destroying Arsenal on the road on Sunday, this has not been a good week.

by Coug1990 on Feb 3, 2010 8:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Wow

I’m a die hard Chelsea fan too. Didn’t think there was another like me.

by Bohawk on Feb 3, 2010 5:55 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

yeah well

Living and breathing as a true die-hard Chelsea AND Mariners isn’t very common around my parts. My third and final team is an obscure one as well. Perhaps you’ve heard of it … Duke basketball?

by Bohawk on Feb 4, 2010 3:53 AM PST via mobile up reply actions  

I feel like this all falls into place when someone gets hurt

I guess most of our injury prone players seem to be the nagging injury types, so maybe this doesn’t work as well. But, it seems to me we can go into the season with a six man bullpen or a short bench, on the assumption that someone gets injured enough to require a stint on the DL. But it seems like the kind of disaster scenarios that make the short bench a serious issue on the road could involve a longer injury time.

by Snuffleupagus on Feb 2, 2010 10:07 PM PST reply actions  

Our set of position players is bizarrely versatile, which could be a full length post in its own right

Really? Figgins can play almost anywhere and Hannahan anywhere in the infield but the rest?

by vj on Feb 3, 2010 1:38 AM PST reply actions  

Lopez 1B, 3B, Garko 3B, 1B, C, Gutz/Ichiro OF

Whether or not they can do it well is a different point.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Feb 3, 2010 2:18 AM PST up reply actions  

That's not really the point

since they won’t be competing for the same slot (unless Garko really impresses with the catcher’s mitt, which seems extremely unlikely); it’s more that there was no real value to Graham in trying to project which catchers would hold those two slots when his focus was on what would be done with other slots on the roster.

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 3, 2010 7:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Johnson had three surgeries this winter

word is they were routine and he’s feeling well, but between that, being terrible last year, and having Moore, Bard, that dude from the Giants and maybe Garko to compete with means it’s wiser to just leave the two catcher slots blank.

Looking at it another way, as far as the Mariners’ roster is concerned two right handed catchers who aren’t very good hitters is sort of a constant.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 3, 2010 7:29 AM PST up reply actions  

Jokes aside,

Does this not play into what they do with Rob Johnson this year?

by d0nkey on Feb 3, 2010 9:56 AM PST up reply actions  

That's a good question

I’m assuming Johnson makes the team if he’s healthy. I assume Bard makes it if Moore has an awful spring and Bard has a good one. I think Quiroz is the backup plan for Johnson, not Bard.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 9:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Johnson isn't the catcher of the future

Adam Moore is. I could easily see Moore stealing Johnson’s job in ST

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 9:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, I agree

But I don’t think they’ll carry two “offensive” catchers (Bard, Alfonso).

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:10 AM PST up reply actions  

I'd been assuming that if Johnson wasn't ready to start the season the likely pairing would be Moore and Bard.

But as Graham points out, that’s pure conjecture. And anyway, not really a performance difference to worry about.

by Lanky on Feb 3, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions  

My thought process on that is

that they’re both questionable defensively. Although, I suppose many would make that same argument about Johnson.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions  

I found an old USS Mariner post where Dave mentions a "bit of a passed ball problem"

On a side note, I didn’t realize that catching the ball was required of M’s catchers.

by Lanky on Feb 3, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

It appears to be systemic

Clement couldn’t catch, Johnson can’t catch, and Moore can’t catch. This ‘roving catcher instructor’ business doesn’t seem to be going too well.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Roger Hansen?

Could he be the problem, or is it more likely a trend in M’s drafting?

by Lanky on Feb 3, 2010 11:29 AM PST up reply actions  

I really have no idea

I don’t know very much about collegiate catcher defence or what Mr. Hansen actually does with them.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 11:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, this keeps coming up....

All these great quotes about the great strides Clement’s making, or how we don’t need to worry about X….he’s working with Hansen now! The return on investment doesn’t appear to be massive at this point.

by marc w on Feb 3, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

I have no idea either

Since my direct observation of catcher development stopped at Little League, where the position could be better described as “backstopping” and therefore the defining qualification was to be the fattest kid on the team.

However, is it possible that the traits that define a “good defensive catcher” have to be developed early, and no amount of later instruction can turn a bad one into a good one? In that case, we might be talking about a failure in scouting rather than in the player-development folks. And it could have been a deliberate decision in the Bavasi era to look for catching prospects with good offensive projections rather than favoring high defensive ceilings.

It is of course complicated by the sparseness of catching stats, but perhaps we’ll be seeing a shift now towards defense mirroring the new emphasis round the rest of the diamond.

by wandergeist on Feb 3, 2010 12:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Clearly, the Bavasi/Fontaine folks looked for different skills

Rob Johnson was an OF in college and a part-time C, Jeff Clement had defensive ‘issues’ but obviously his bat made that issue seem like nit-picking. Moore, I don’t know, but the pattern was fairly clear for the guys who weren’t system depth.
Was that because they believed Hansen could work miracles on anyone with a decent amount of athleticism? Because they viewed catcher defense as overrated? Or because they prioritized offense? Impossible to know, but it would’ve been interesting to hear Fontaine talk about that sort of thing…

by marc w on Feb 3, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks, Graham

That’s an interesting read. You’d think Bochy (an ex-catcher) would pick up on that.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 11:05 AM PST up reply actions  

I cringed at this thought

But then I saw the silver lining: if the tirades are frequent and notable, and yet the team keeps winning (and goes on to the post-season), perhaps we could use it to finally bludgeon the “chemistry” fetishists into silence.

by wandergeist on Feb 3, 2010 12:11 PM PST up reply actions  

At the very least it will be entertaining to watch.

I put this roster’s chances of making the next Best Damn Sports Show List of Whatever at around 70%.

by Lanky on Feb 3, 2010 12:21 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd assume that barring Moore being really great or Bard being terrible in ST

That we’d open the season with one of Johnson/Moore and Bard. Having a catcher that can hit lefthanded is an asset.

by Poochie on Feb 3, 2010 11:33 AM PST up reply actions  

That's a good point

I hope it’s Moore instead of Johnson, though.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 11:35 AM PST up reply actions  

I hadn't thought of that.

I guess that would depend on the value to Moore of staying in AAA. It’s hard to imagine they would stunt his growth just for the platoon.
Or maybe it’s not hard to imagine.

by Lanky on Feb 3, 2010 11:46 AM PST up reply actions  

It doesn't necessarily have to be a straight platoon

I think Moore would also benefit from Bard’s experience (as someone pointed out earlier). I like it, especially since it appears I had under-estimated Bard’s defensive ability.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 11:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Johnson is garbage, hes a terrible catcher

i dont get why people are such big supporters of him…i would rather give garko a chance behind the plate than have our rotation suffer with a tool named rob johnson behind the plate. a catcher should be able to do 3 things well. first CATCH THE BALL- johnson fails there…. 2 throw the ball- especially to 2nd before the opposing base runner gets there. and 3 call the right pitch for the player at the plate, thus inducing strikeouts, pop flys or ground outs, depending on the situation. so maybe we should invest in a catcher like that…

by mariseanerhawk on Feb 5, 2010 1:03 AM PST up reply actions  

I am not in midseason form, so I do not remember the baseball rule book

Graham, you mentioned that you thought Langerhans might have to pass through waivers to go to the minors. Would he really? If he were on the 25 man roster, then he would. But, at this time, there is no 25 man roster. He has a major league contract (split actually), but Dustin Ackley has a major league contract and he does not have to pass through anything. I would assume (there’s that word) that in spring training, Langerhans can just be reassigned to the minor leagues like the rest of the players that do not make the opening day roster.

I actually do not know the rule and Langerhans may end up making the roster, so this all could be for naught. Anyway, another good article. Thanks

by Coug1990 on Feb 3, 2010 7:46 AM PST reply actions  

Players with major league deals (i.e. 40-man roster spots) can be optioned to the minors.

Ackley has (three) option years left. Langerhans doesn’t have any, so waivers for him. As far as I know, the split contract simply gives him a guaranteed salary should he pass through waivers successfully.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 7:48 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Thanks

I have been trying to figure that detail out, and that was very clearly stated.

by el generico on Feb 3, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't see the problem with a four man bench

But I do think we’ll see different configurations throughout the year. Basically, I see three different scenarios:
1. 12 pitchers
2. A fifth outfielder (Langerhans or Byrnes)
3. An extra infielder (Tui, Josh Wilson, etc.)
We’ll probably see each of those at some point during the season. I think there’s zero chance that Garko will be the second catcher.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 8:01 AM PST reply actions  

A four man bench is a three man bench due to Junior.

Either all the time or just against left-handed pitching. A backup catcher cuts that down to two. You’re therefore going to be missing one out of a backup corner infielder, backup middle infielder, or backup outfielder. Junior’s lack of defensive value is a killer here.

Also, I don’t think there’s any way they use Garko as a second catcher. But it’s an interesting roster permutation, and I think it’d be super-neat.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 8:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Having this problem is not new to the Mariners

During Edgar’s last several years he was a DH only player like Griffey is now. Plus last year, both Griffey and Sweeney were both essentially DH only players, although Sweeney did get minor time at 1b.

by Coug1990 on Feb 3, 2010 8:22 AM PST up reply actions  

No, it's not

A platoon DH requires two roster spots by definition.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 9:15 AM PST up reply actions  

That is not entirely correct (and I have to go after this post)

That is only true if there were two DH only players like last year. Since Bradley, Garko, etc., can still play the field they are not taking up an additional roster spot.

If Griffey were full time DH, the roster would still be the same, the PA’s would just be allocated differently for each player.

Regarding the bench, if Griffey contributes enough to keep his job (and I am not sure he will), he will be DH against the majority of RH starters. Therefore, there is a full and normal bench. He is not taking up two slots.

When there is a LH pitcher and Griffey sits, that is the only time there is a short bench. He then becomes a PH and there have been teams that have carried a PH for a season. It is not optimal, but it has happened. There is enough versatility with the players to work around a short bench when Griffey sits. In this scenario, he takes up one and a half.

So, proportionately, he takes up I am guessing 1.3 roster spots. Anyway, have a good day. I have to go.

by Coug1990 on Feb 3, 2010 9:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Because the difference is...

Edgar, as a full time DH, was almost never on the bench. That meant that when the game started all the players on the bench could play somwhere in the field.

Junior, as a platoon DH, will frequently start the game on the bench. Which means one of the bench slots is only available as a PH whenever he is not the DH.

What I am saying is that, yes, having a platoon DH is different than having a full time DH on a roster.

by Paul AB on Feb 3, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I meant you need 2 platoon players to make 1 normal DH

Platoon players require partners, which means another roster spot you could’ve used elsewhere.

by OlSalty on Feb 3, 2010 9:22 AM PST up reply actions  

That's the definition of a DH though

and if you have one guy doing it full time it’s not a loss in value, like a platoon player is.

by pdb on Feb 3, 2010 9:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Hannahan and Byrnes (or Langerhans) are your backups

Beyond that, you need at a backup catcher, and that’s it. Their versatility covers the 2nd backup issues. The depth chart as I see it:
OF: (starters), Byrnes, Figgins, Garko, Griffey
2B: Lopez, Figgins, Hannahan
SS: Wilson, Figgins, Hannahan/Lopez
3B: Figgins, Hannahan, Garko
C: Moore, Johnson, Garko
I think they’re probably thinner than they’d like, but certainly doable.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 8:27 AM PST up reply actions  

That would force Griffey to play more.

If you only have one of Byrnes and Langerhans, they cannot platoon effectively when Bradley’s DHing. Therefore more Bradley in left. Therefore more Griffey at DH.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 8:33 AM PST up reply actions  

That's just it, I don't see Bradley as a DH

I think it will be Garko and Griffey in an ~50% split, more or less, depending on how Griffey hits. I know a lot of people disagree with that, but I haven’t seen any indication that I’m wrong. If something happens (For instance, Bradley can’t play LF, but can hit) then I think the M’s add another OF.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 8:46 AM PST up reply actions  

I think the hope is that you're right and that Garko becomes redundant.

I see Garko as reliable insurance for Griffey and Kotchman. The best of all possible worlds? Bradley is a healthy, everyday player, Griffey is an offensive force, and Byrnes returns to 2007 form. And then Garko is largely irrelevant. Fears? Bradley is oft-injured, Griffey continues his decline, and Kotchman really was a highly overrated prospect who can’t produce enough to be an everyday MLB 1B. In those cases, Byrnes is insurance for Bradley, Langerhans for Byrnes, and Garko for either Griffey or Kotchman. All in all, I think the M’s have very solid contingency plans.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 9:19 AM PST up reply actions  

My expected scenario is Griffey is the DH against RHP at home, with Bradley in left

All other situations have Bradley at DH and the Langerhans/Byrnes platoon in left. Garko and Kotchman platoon at first.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 9:28 AM PST up reply actions  

I really think the M's want Kotchman as the everyday 1B.

With Garko filling in only occasionally. Of course, if Kotchman fails to hit, then that is a different story. Also, there is an outside chance that Byrnes forces the issue by playing really well.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 9:33 AM PST up reply actions  

I can only see one reason not to be platooning Kotchman and Garko

And that’s if you’re committed to playing Bradley in the OF at all times and using a Griffey/Garko DH platoon.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions  

And I think that's the expectation, but...

there is one more reason: They think Kotchman will turn out to be the player he was always expected to be. And that means hitting left-handers. I think Kotchman is one of the key players this year. He could really surprise to the upside and that would change the whole perception of the offense.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 9:42 AM PST up reply actions  

The FO isn't going to ignore quite a bit of data in favor of hype and expectations from 2005.

Assuming Kotchman is going to suddenly start hitting same-handed pitching would be crazy.

by abender20 on Feb 3, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions  

He hasn't shown much of a platoon split.

I don’t think they give a rat’s ass about hype. I think they care A LOT about their own assessments, however.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:00 AM PST up reply actions  

No

They’ll be hoping for that, but planning for a breakout is, frankly, stupid.

by Graham MacAree on Feb 3, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions  

That's one reason they have Garko.

They’re not planning on a breakout from Kotchman, but he’s one of the guys where it’s a reasonable possibility.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Disclaimer

Everything I write is my opinion and is no way intended to be taken, in any way, as representing or associated with the Seattle Mariners.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Make up your mind

If you know I’m merely stating my opinion, why do you accuse me of “asserting that I know what the front office plans to do”?

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Well, no you can be certain I don't

Maybe I should use IMHO more? I thought chatspeak was discouraged, though.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Maybe you shouldn't say things like this
That’s one reason they have Garko.

They’re not planning on a breakout from Kotchman, but he’s one of the guys where it’s a reasonable possibility.

Maybe if you phrased it “I don’t think they are expecting a breakout from Kotchman, but it’s possible.”

by seattlebruin on Feb 3, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions  

At one point in time, I did that

But, I read something that made me stop doing it so much. It was something like this:

Using I think, I believe, etc

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions  

We're not writing papers here

there’s no need to thoroughly convince your audience of your point. If you come off as an asshole by writing authoritatively when you are clearly trying to represent what the FO will do, that will cause a lot of people to dislike the way you post.

I hope you understand the difference between writing authoritatively when you are attempting to convince an audience of a point and writing in a similar style when you are trying to have a discussion.

by seattlebruin on Feb 3, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Well,
They think Kotchman will turn out to be the player he was always expected to be. And that means hitting left-handers.

by abender20 on Feb 3, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Bad example

If you read my whole comment, (I think) you’ll see why.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:45 AM PST up reply actions  

I think you'll find

that this comment is one of those comments that is a good example of how you come off the wrong way to other posters.

It is very argumentative and makes no substantive point other than to belittle the other commenter. This is not something that is acceptable or tolerated at Lookout Landing.

Thanks!

by seattlebruin on Feb 3, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions  

You can assert that something is your opinion without using chatspeak

Phrases like “I think” or “here’s how it looks to me” aren’t that onerous to type.

by pdb on Feb 3, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions  

There is a degree of uncertainty you (and by you I mean anyone without inside information) should probably assert when phrasing your posts which I don't think you have been

I think the reason people have argued with you over minor points is you have been posting with a rather concrete, authoritative tone that’s just begging for people to correct when there is some better logic to the contrary.

It’s not really a big deal, but it would probably help you out.

by OlSalty on Feb 3, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Fair point and duly noted

Thanks for the thoughtful, sincere response. To be fair, I think most of my comments are written that way.

by morrow on Feb 3, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions  

And everyone here ignores this from time to time.

Doesn’t excuse it, but everyone’s jumping all over morrow, and yet we all do this. It’s fine to be explicit about this sort of thing, but I think it’s a reach to think that morrow was asserting he had inside info that Garko was acquired to back-up Kotchman who is about to go nuts on the league.

by marc w on Feb 3, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

If you guys look over this thread again, you'll see that there have been other people that have asserted their thoughts in concrete terms.

Including yourself, Ol Salty. And I didn’t see anyone criticizing them for their choice of words.

And if you look at morrow’s posts, you’ll see many times where he uses terms like “I think” “I hope” “I see this as”. Saying he’s argumentative is one thing, and perhaps appropriate. But telling him he can’t comment in the same manner as other posters is holding him to a different standard.

by nathaniel dawson on Feb 3, 2010 12:12 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Yes I realize that we all do it from time to time

But I wouldn’t say people do it regularly, and the content of those authoritative statements is usually supported by the available evidence. When you’re saying something that doesn’t make sense authoritatively people are going to argue with you, whereas if you say something that is much more likely to be true people will let it slide. However I think it is something everyone needs to work on avoiding in this type of setting, including myself.

by OlSalty on Feb 3, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Ryan Garko as a catcher -

Not exactly knowing his “greatness” at catcher, he did indeed win the Johnny Bench Award in 2003 while at Stanford. This award honors college baseball’s best catcher. 2004 was Kurt Suzuki, then Jeff Clement in 2005. Ryan Garko Wins Johnny Bench Award

by thebluefox on Feb 3, 2010 12:48 PM PST reply actions  

Bedard

Mlbtraderumors.com has posted a rumor that the M’s are re-engaging Bedard in resigning talks. I love that website almost as much as this one.

by DJPinPDX on Feb 3, 2010 4:59 PM PST reply actions  

Hmm, injury risk?

too much of a risk for injury, although if we keep him cheap and he stays healthy, we would have a pretty dominate rotation. It’s hard to want to keep a guy that Bavasi traded for.

by thebluefox on Feb 3, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

For sure

But a half season of Bedard is probably as valuable as a full season of Washburn.

by OlSalty on Feb 3, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Bedard should be viewed as a mid-season pick-up

Like a trade-deadline acquisition, because he isn’t going to be ready to pitch before then (if all goes according to plan — it’s not like he hasn’t had “setbacks” before). So he’s pennant-push material at best. And doesn’t at all answer the question of what #3 pitcher to be targeting for opening day. (Pedro for the first half and Bedard for the second? What with all the other platoons happening on this team, why not?)

by wandergeist on Feb 3, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Garko at catcher

I’m one of the contributors from LetsGoTribe stopping by. Garko has his merits when used in a limited capacity. He is not a backup catcher. I think should the Mariners try to go that route the team will quickly discover this. Garko can serve as an emergency catcher, but he doesn’t have the quickness behind the plate, arm strength, or game-calling ability to be a backup catcher at the big league level.

by APV on Feb 4, 2010 6:57 AM PST reply actions  

Thanks for the Cleveland perspective.

We have very little to go on regarding his play behind the plate, it’s something we’ve been contemplating around here. It’s nice to hear an opinion from a fan of the team he came up with.

by nathaniel dawson on Feb 4, 2010 1:56 PM PST up reply actions  

It is just a telling sign that while they were willing to (disastrously) give him some time in the outfield, he never once caught an inning in Cleveland.

by APV on Feb 4, 2010 8:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

By reading a game thread of your own volition you agree to accept all liability for any and all damage done to your delicate sensibilities.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Seattle Mariners Organization and Minors

Recent FanPosts

Small
Who will have a better season?
Claw_small
BA's Top 10 M's Prospects
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Munenori Kawasaki Predictions!!!
Small
The Longevity and Future Success of Felix Hernandez.
Small
The present vs future conundrum
Small
2012 Seattle Mariners: Playoff Team
Smell-the-glove_small
OT 1/24/12 - How Do You Survive Winter?
Small
That extra 2%

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew