Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing' Set For Sunday

Bad News On The Hannahan Front

So I don't actually know what percentage of you are constantly reading Twitter and the other blogs all the time. If it's 100%, then I apologize for repeating old news. If it's not 100%, then, hey - according to Dan Wakamatsu, via Geoff Baker, Jack Hannahan will not be ready for Opening Day, as he's still experiencing some discomfort in the groinal area. He was supposed to take some groundballs today, but...well I can't figure out how to work in a "but he felt like he had ground balls instead" joke here so for god's sake let's just skip past the opening paragraph. I'm so ashamed.

Dave's already got up his response, and you should go read it. The in-house options right now for the utility role are Josh Wilson and Matt Tuiasosopo, and Dave isn't a big fan, so his first preference is to trade for somebody. Not someone real shiny or core-worthy, but rather someone who comes cheap and can handle himself at a number of positions. Like Willie Ballgame if Willie Ballgame weren't terrible.

As usual, I agree with Dave, in that a trade for someone useful would be great. However, I'm not quite so reluctant to go with what we've got. Especially if "go with what we've got" means Matt Tuiasosopo.

First of all, Jack Hannahan probably isn't going to miss a whole lot of time. As any good hockey fan can tell you, groin injuries can be tricky, and Hannahan hasn't undergone a thorough evaluation, but assuming there's nothing dreadfully wrong with him, getting some rest should do him a lot of good. Let's say you give him a couple weeks to get healthy and work his way back into some approximation of game shape. Then, because he missed his chance to get reps at short in spring training, you send him to Tacoma for regular work instead. This is all just estimation and speculation since I don't know the extent of Hannahan's injury, but you could conceivably get him up at the end of April or sometime in May if the reports on his defense are positive, and you prefer him over the guy you have in Seattle.

Then you're dealing with the probability that the utility guy won't be seeing a ton of action. Granted, Jack Wilson could get hurt making coffee, but let's say you give the utility guy two starts a week. Through the end of May, that's 16 starts. The difference between a perfectly league-average Jack Hannahan and a replacement-level player over 16 starts is a quarter of a win. The difference between a more likely Jack Hannahan and a replacement-level player over 16 starts is almost negligible. No, you never want to take a hit anywhere, but there are worse places to take a hit than the end of the bench.

And lastly, while Matt Tuiasosopo has a pretty lousy reputation as a defensive shortstop, there's no such thing as a guy who "can't" play a position. Anybody can play any position. It's just a matter of how well or how poorly. Matt Tuiasosopo is not a good defensive shortstop. In fact, he's probably a lousy one. But it's not like he can't bend over or throw a baseball at another guy standing somewhere else. Let's call Tui a -25 run shortstop over a full season. Awful. Awful! A -25 run shortstop, though, only needs to hit like, I dunno, Orlando Cabrera in order to be replacement-level. And if you average Tui's 2010 projections, you get just that as an offensive forecast. I think it's pretty safe to call Matt Tuiasosopo a replacement-level shortstop, but he's a replacement-level shortstop with some upside, what with the possibility that he keeps spraying line drives everywhere in the bigs, and the possibility that he's a little better than a -25 in the field.

He could also offer a little reserve support at 2B, 3B, and the corner outfield positions, and while he wouldn't be good, if you've opted for Matt Tuiasosopo, you've done so knowing he's not going to wow you in the field. At least not in the good way.

It's too bad that Hannahan's down, and I'm a bigger fan of his than most, but at the end of the day, this isn't the worst thing ever. In fact, given the premise that more bad things happen in the world than good things, this might be closer to the best thing ever than the worst thing ever if you look at the scale. Utility players are important to have, but they seldom contribute a whole ton of value, so the difference between a decent one and a replacement-level one isn't real big. And when you throw in the fact that Hannahan could be back fairly soon, and that one of our replacement-level options has real upside, it's all just more a minor inconvenience than anything. It's a change of plan, but hardly a major one, and not necessarily one that needs to be addressed with a trade.

-----

For the record, it's been pointed out that, barring a trade, the M's might opt for Josh Wilson over Tui because he's the superior glove, and this is a team that highly values defense. That's absolutely a valid point, but one must remember that Wilson is fairly established as what he is, and this is an organization that understands overall value. It's not like Ryan Garko's a magician out there. If the front office and/or coaching staff determine that they prefer Tui's bat/glove combination over Wilson's, it will in no way be out of character, nor a surprise.

Comment 81 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

More from Lookout Landing

Throwing the Bums Out

Oct 2011 by Matthew - 9 comments

Grading the Minors: The Unmentioned

Jul 2011 by Matthew - 58 comments

2011 Tacoma Rainiers

Apr 2011 by JonBBT - 5 comments

Comments

Display:

I will happily admit that I've never seen him play with my own eyes

But Yuni was like -15. You’re effectively suggesting that Tui would be a -20 or -30 1B.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 22, 2010 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not really

Skills don’t transition like that. If you moved Raul Ibanez to shortstop, assuming he’s a -20 run LF, you don’t expect him to be a -30 run SS.

by Graham MacAree on Mar 22, 2010 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Of course not,

but the 2B/SS/3B grouping is one where the translations more or less hold. Jeff should probably have said -35 or -45 3B instead of the 1B thing, but it’s roughly the same idea.

by Matthew on Mar 22, 2010 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

1B is weird

Let’s just deal with 2B/3B/SS, because that pool of players is generally all the same.

Tui is a fringe 3B. He’s barely passable there. He probably is -10 to -15 as a 3B. He’s worked really hard, but he’s not good there. I was impressed with how far he’d come when he played second last summer, but that was a “oh you aren’t the hilarious disaster I expected”.

If you take a fringe 3B and stick them at SS, there’s going to be a magnification on the deficiencies. Because of the increased quantity of BIP hit to the position, his flaws will be exposed even more.

Maybe -50 is an exaggeration. But I’d pencil him as a -30 to -40 shortstop. There isn’t a major league team in baseball that gives innings at SS to a guy with his physical abilities.

by davidcameron on Mar 22, 2010 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

And, yes, I know, the position adjustments

I’m as big a fan of them as anyone. But there’s certainly a selective sample thing going on there. We observe smaller differences between the positions because the only guys who get to play both SS and 3B are guys who are pretty good 3Bs. No one’s taking Ty Wigginton and playing him at shortstop.

by davidcameron on Mar 22, 2010 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

The selective sample issue is an important point, and one I wish more people would keep in mind

But it’s just…hard…for me to believe that Tui could be that bad, given that he’s young and athletic and improving and we’ve seen Yuni and all that. I will forever defer to the people who’ve seen him with their own eyes, but in your estimation, what do you think the Mariners think? Is their giving Tui innings at SS kind of a hoping-against-hope sort of deal, or what?

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 22, 2010 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tui isn't really all that athletic

He’s tall and strong, but he doesn’t really run very well. No one’s ever described him as limber. He’s less athletic than Mike Morse, I’ll put it that way.

They’re giving Tui innings at short because the games don’t matter right now. It’s the same reason they ran those ridiculous defenses in Tacoma last year – those games didn’t matter either, so Chris Shelton played third and they put Brad Nelson and Bryan LaHair in the corner outfield spots.

There’s basically no SS depth in the organization, and someone has to play there in ST. My feeling is that, as much as they like Tui’s bat and work ethic, they just won’t put him and Lopez next to each other on the left side of the infield. Not with this team.

by davidcameron on Mar 22, 2010 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Lopez factor is one of the big reasons I want nothing to do with Tui at SS

If you put a crap defender next to Lopez, you make his already questionable 3b defense even worse.

I suppose it’s not impossible they could run out Tui at 3b, Lopez at 2b, and Figgins at 2nd, but there’s only so much position shuffling you can ask people to do.

by Jeff Nye on Mar 22, 2010 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oops, yes, I did, thanks for catching that.

And yeah, Dave, that was what I was figuring; plus I’m not sure that switch would help you much anyway, it’d just be incrementally better than trying to have Tui hold down SS.

by Jeff Nye on Mar 22, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

They're not moving Figgins and Lopez again

That’s just not an option anymore. Both guys are fine with the switch, but want it to be settled – no more moving around. Figgins will go back to third when Ackley is ready, but until then, I doubt you’ll see either of those two play more than a handful of innings anywhere besides their “normal” position.

by davidcameron on Mar 22, 2010 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

So Josh Wilson it is, then, assuming you're correct

Even there, with Wilson being really bad, you’re not missing Hannahan a whole lot, because the same of games is so small. If Wilson’s the placeholder, you gotta figure Hannahan comes up the second he’s ready.

On the off chance that the M’s do nevertheless pick Tui, would that change your estimation of his defense at all?

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 22, 2010 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

I still think a trade is possible, maybe even likely

It would be one thing if Wilson was just the backup SS, but given the roster, he’s the backup 2B/3B/SS, which means that when any of Lopez/Figgins/Wilson are out of the game, he’s in. The M’s found themselves in a similar spot last year when Chris Woodward was playing too much, and that prompted the Hannahan trade, because things were starting to go badly and Woodward was a big part of the problem.

With Lee out forcing a move to 12 pitchers, you’re looking at an opening day four man bench. I don’t think I can see the M’s really going with Catcher-Byrnes-Wilson-Garko and calling it good. Just too many potential problems.

As for my perception of Tui’s defense, that’s based on what I’ve seen more than my what I think others think about him, so not really. But, obviously, they won’t do it if they agree with me, so they’d have to be more bullish on his glove than I am to make that call.

by davidcameron on Mar 22, 2010 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, if you want to think trade

there’s always the hope that Joaquin Arias beats out Esteban German in Texas, if Nix doesn’t work.

As for the Woodward situation, though, the Hannahan trade only took place after Beltre went on the DL. I could see the benefit of being proactive and fixing something before it gets the chance to become a problem, but I don’t think the M’s have to go to a lot of trouble here, because right now nobody’s hurt, and Hannahan should still be back before too long. Unless he has a significant tear in there, in which case my position here changes.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 22, 2010 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

If Hannahan will be ready April 15th, then no trade

But its March 22nd and he can’t even handle infield drills. I think we’re looking at May 1st at the earliest, by the time he recovers enough to get back on the field and gets a rehab assignment long enough to make up for the fact that he missed all of spring training. And still needs experience playing SS.

Toss in the probable loss of Langerhans (I don’t think he clears waivers), and all of the sudden, this team really does need another IF/OF utility guy. Carrying both 12 pitchers while trying to platoon at LF, 1B, and DH is almost impossible without a play-everywhere guy.

by davidcameron on Mar 22, 2010 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would kill to find out

Right about now it would be nice to find out the severity of Lee and Hannahan’s issues. It does make me nervous that Hannahan isn’t moving around real well yet.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 22, 2010 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, I think we know about as much as can be known

I think Lee’s abdominal injuries will linger, but he might be able to adjust and play through the pain and still be pretty productive.

Hannahan, who really knows; but I think the team will be able to figure out some sort of solution if it looks like he’ll miss a lot of time.

Dave’s suggestion of Jayson Nix is a good one, but there are other possibilities out there.

by Jeff Nye on Mar 22, 2010 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

I actually agree with this

Yeah, Aviles ain’t happening, but Hulett could.

by marc w on Mar 23, 2010 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

I've seen him play SS, yes. 'Good enough' is a good way to put it.

Range isn’t great, but he’s decent. Good totalzone numbers, for what that’s worth.

I think he’d be -5<x<-15 or so

by marc w on Mar 23, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

That seems to me to be the Josh Wilson zone as well.

Tug’s a more palatable hitter, though, so I guess if he could be had for Fabian Williamson then why not?

by abender20 on Mar 23, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah. In retrospect, -5 is pushing it, but the advantage with the bat

would more than make up for it.

I’m also stunned that Nick Green was as passable at SS as he was in 2009. The error bars are so wide on a one-season sample. If Hulett was -25 or +15, it wouldn’t be that shocking.

by marc w on Mar 23, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Why? They like him as a 2B.

Which, I mean, that’s hilarious….you’ve got Yuni Betancourt and NOT Yuni Betancourt. How would you arrange them to maximize your MIF defense?

by marc w on Mar 23, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think if we went around baseball we could find a ton of guys like this in AAA

not that its particularly useful for us to do this. I’ll leave it up to the front office.

by Edgar for Pres on Mar 23, 2010 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

Kevin Frandsen?

Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all

McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.

by baetown415 on Mar 23, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

Seriously?

Tui’s less athletic than Mike Morse?

I guess I don’t see it…

As often as I saw them both in Tacoma, I’d give Tui the athletic edge. Morse looks like an un-coordinated giraffe compared to Tui.

Tui sucked at third. Never was a big fan. I was really shocked at how un-terrible he looked at 2B. He’s got more range than Morse and better instincts. You know I’m a HUGE Mike Morse fanboy, and yet willing to admit how terrible he is. But you can’t knock Tui by saying he’s less athletic than Morse. I really don’t think that’s true.

I do agree that he’s not the ideal option – but I don’t think he’d kill the team as the backup. And there’s no way in hell he’d look as ridiculous as Morse did in the outfield. Again, I say this as a huge Morse fanboy, but, man, he was terrrrrible out there.

Does the World Series trophy come with a plate of bacon?

by PositivePaul on Mar 23, 2010 1:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is a decent point

Tui looked bad at 3b, and he may be one of those people whose skills just work better in the middle of the infield – worse reactions, but better lateral movement, something like that.
Like Dave, I was stunned seeing him at 2B. No, he wasn’t really ‘good’ out there, but he also didn’t look lost. I think this is a case where the 3B numbers/visuals might not give a great indication of the potential damage of playing him at SS. Just like seeing Morse at, oh, 2B didn’t give you an accurate indication of just how lost he would be in the OF.

Tui’s starting at SS again today, and while the games don’t matter, I think this shows that they’re giving him a shot to win Hannahan’s job. He’d give away some runs, but this wouldn’t be long-term, and it would give the M’s an opportunity to pick and choose Wilson’s off-days. RRS on the hill, OK, Tui can play (this is exactly what they’re doing today, by the way). Felix? Jack Wilson starts.

by marc w on Mar 23, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

I thought his defense has improved this past year?

I’d still expect him to be awful, but -40 or -50?

by OlSalty on Mar 22, 2010 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think it's important to remember that Hannahan was not really an ML shortstop either

he could man the position in a pinch, and he had great range at third, but we actually have no idea how well he’d have done there. His qualifications as a reserve infielder were a) hits alright b) bats left c) plays everywhere BUT SS pretty well. I guess he’s better than Tui, but I doubt he’s a much better fielder than Bloomquist.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 22, 2010 7:13 PM PDT reply actions  

Jack Hannahan is an elite-level defensive 3B

Position changes aren’t as nebulous as they’re made out to be. Moving from 3B to SS is hard, but it’s fairly easy to predict. Over time, there’s no reason why Hannahan wouldn’t be fine.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 22, 2010 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh I'm ok with him as a backup there

I was just saying that Hannahan’s backup doesn’t have such big shoes to fill.

De Gutibus non disputandum est

by Bearskin Rugburn on Mar 22, 2010 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's a tremendous expression.

Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.

by JAH on Mar 22, 2010 7:21 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Don't know people's opinions of TotalZone

but it’s got Tui as being worth a total of -21 runs at 2B/SS/3B since 2006. There’s a horrible, horrible number next to Tui/SS/2005, but that was a while ago.

by Jeff Sullivan on Mar 22, 2010 7:24 PM PDT reply actions  

Yeah, that's why he got moved.

Not even much of a trend there – good in ’07, baaaad in ’08, in the middle in 2009.

The sample is very small, but Josh Wilson doesn’t look too hot through UZR (his TotalZone numbers aren’t bad, though).

by marc w on Mar 23, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

This, for me, is why I'd prefer Tui to Wilson at this point in time (excepting for the possibility that Tui is awful at short).

Wilson doesn’t have the sample size to prove all that much, but he doesn’t look like a good defender and we know he can’t hit. Tui should cover the gap with his bat as long as he doesn’t Morse it at short.

by abender20 on Mar 23, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, if he's better than -30/-35 runs (which is a damn low bar) then he gets the nod over Wilson

That’s a separate issue to Dave’s trade scenario, of course, but it’s an important one.

If they think they can utilize Tui at SS in a way that makes sense (FB pitcher on the mound), then they don’t automatically HAVE to make a deal (though of course they’re probably in talks with a few teams right now).

by marc w on Mar 23, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

"Morse it"?

I think we need a new defensive spectrum just for SS
Yuni – Morse – Bloomquist – Hannahan – Wilson

And then try to figure out which side of Bloomquist Tui fits.

(There are many more we could stick in there, from Carlos Guillen to Oswaldo Navarro, Arod to Wilson Valdez, even Rich Aurilia and Ramon Santiago, but at some point obscurity overwhelms us)

by wandergeist on Mar 23, 2010 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm pro-Tui.

He’s defense sucks, but again, this is a stopgap. And this team is gonna suck at hitting, so…

by SethGrandpa on Mar 22, 2010 9:13 PM PDT reply actions  

Can Harvey Dent play short stop?

Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.

by JAH on Mar 22, 2010 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Two Face?

"Why did he run when I was going to throw him out?"
- Ichiro Suzuki

by Slow Country on Mar 22, 2010 11:06 PM PDT 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.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Starlin Castro's fit with Seattle
Kawasaki80_small
Lists! So many lists!
M_s_hat_copy_small
OT -- May 22nd In Memoriam
Ichiro_small
Why do managers and media members hate walks?
Wbc_029_small
Friday Morning Music Thread
Small
Dustin Ackley BP swing vs game swing
Beastquakerwallpaper_small
More on the Struggles of Smoak
Randy2_for_sbn_small
Albert Pujols 2012: Three Retrospectives
Small
On Batting Orders
Niehaus_small
More on Dustin Ackley and the strikezone

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Sexy People

Wbc_029_small Jeff Sullivan

Small Matthew

Claw_small JY