Navigation: Jump to content areas:


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

Mariners Rattle Baseball World, Acquire Lucas Luetge

I slept in a little later than I usually do this morning, and when I woke up and checked Twitter, I immediately regretted it. It seems that, while I was asleep, the Mariners made an absolute stunner of a move, selecting Lucas Luetge in the Rule 5 Draft. All eyes are on the Mariners now, and I feel bad for not getting to this earlier.

The basics: Luetge was selected from the Brewers organization ( :O ). He is 24 years old, he is left-handed, and he is a pitcher, of the relieving sort. The Mariners have been looking for a left-handed reliever, which explains Steve Garrison and Sean Henn and their interest in Arthur Rhodes and their interest in other dudes, so Luetge is one more potential solution. One more guy on the pile, where this pile is a sub-pile of the other pile.

You remember Jose Flores? He's the guy the Mariners took in last year's Rule 5 Draft. Flores, obviously, didn't make the team, being returned to the Indians, and odds are that Luetge will end up being returned to the Brewers in spring training. But he'll get a look, and if the Mariners don't bring in any more left-handed relievers, he could have a pretty good chance. The Mariners will probably bring in more left-handed relievers.

Luetge works off of an unimpressive but allegedly improving fastball and a curveball. He throws other pitches, but the other pitches are not very good, or at least reports written by people I don't know and have never met say that the other pitches are not very good. Over a year and a half of experience in double-A, Luetge's posted 29 walks and 57 strikeouts against righties, but 11 walks and 59 strikeouts against lefties, without a single home run. Obviously, he could fit as a specialist, or he could not.

In the event that Luetge does make the Mariners, Major League Baseball will feature a Luetge, a Lueke, and a Luebke. I suspect that public opinion will be against him, though, because Lucas Luetge will forever be the guy the Mariners acquired on the same day the Angels got C.J. Wilson and Albert Pujols.

Angels: /get Pujols
Angels: /get Wilson
Mariners: /get Luetge
Mariners fan: That's a funny looking Prince Fielder!
Luetge: :(

Poor Lucas Luetge.

Comment 106 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Hey, if the "t" is silent

you might pronounce his name LOOGY. That’s a convenient gimmick for establishing a name/role association. Ironic that Prince Fielder’s name does not work that way.

by goyo70 on Dec 8, 2011 9:46 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

Brew Crew Ball has an interview with him from '08

http://www.brewcrewball.com/2008/7/25/578865/bcb-interview-lhp-lucas-lu

BCB: Growing up in Texas, were you a Rangers or Astros fan?

LL: Actually neither—I grew up being a Mariner fan because of Griffey.

BCB: Oh really? Do you still follow them?

LL: No, not as much; now I just like watching baseball in general, but I still follow Griffey.

by chaney on Dec 8, 2011 9:50 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

The Brewers' A ball affiliate is the Manatees?

And their tag line is “Fear the Sea Cow”? That is spectacular.

by wetzelcoal on Dec 8, 2011 9:53 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

They may become

my new favorite baseball team based on that alone.

by 51dimes on Dec 8, 2011 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

The blind spot of web development.

“What if users don’t like this? How can I allow them to hide it?”

START THINKING MORE ABOUT THAT, SBN

by Matthew on Dec 8, 2011 11:24 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Did not know

the follow button was so unpopular! Don’t think I got many followers from it anyways.

by 51dimes on Dec 8, 2011 11:39 AM PST up reply actions  

It's sig lines that are unpopular, yours was just an egregious example

Reading the same thing over and over makes for a cluttered discussion.

by lemonverbena on Dec 8, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Reading through the profile on him on BA...

my response is, “great, we drafted another Brian Moran.”

I don’t know why I continue to expect anything out of these selections.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 8, 2011 9:55 AM PST reply actions  

And we lost Efrain Nunez to the Rangers in the minor league phase, which could end up meaning something.

He’s had his ups and downs, but he’s a talented hitter.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 8, 2011 10:05 AM PST up reply actions  

But we kept Dan Carroll, that's cool

right? Don’t the Rangers have to give up a spot on their 40 man roster to keep Nunez? And doesn’t that mean it’s going to be harder to fit Darvish into the fold. “Damn. That Nunez guy is good, and so cheap. I don’t know about this whole Darvish thingamaroll…”

by goyo70 on Dec 8, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Doesn't work that way.

Nunez was selected in the minor league portion of the Rule 5 and has no impact on the Rangers’ 40-man situation whatsoever. In theory, the way these things are suppposed to work out, Nunez was selected in the triple-A phase and should remain with the Rangers’ triple-A affiliate next season, but in practice, no one really cares and he’ll probably break camp in their A-ball affiliate.

I’m not super upset about it because the track record for our great Pulaski hitters going on to do anything is not good, but I seem to care more about this loss than the acquisition of the other guy.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 8, 2011 1:02 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

The system in place now pretty much doesn't allow for big moves.

What I’d like though is something other than a reliever of limited usefulness whom we have a high chance of returning. We’ve done that. A bunch. The results haven’t gotten any more interesting.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 8, 2011 10:43 AM PST up reply actions  

Submitted for consideration:

Moran (2011, AA): 60.2 IP, 60 H, 63/22 K/BB
Luetge (2011, AA): 69.0 IP, 63 H, 69/23 K/BB

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 8, 2011 11:46 AM PST up reply actions  

HEY JAY DID WE DO IT THIS YEAR?

DID WE FINALLY LAND SOMEONE WORTH EVEN GOOGLING? NO? SHIT

by abender20 on Dec 8, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions  

FUCK NAW, MAN

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 8, 2011 9:08 PM PST up reply actions  

They are basically the same

the only thing I noticed that was different is Moran allowed 9 Homeruns while Luetge allowed 3.

by ThirdStringTheCharm on Dec 9, 2011 5:17 PM PST up reply actions  

Here's the downside.

We’ll never be afforded a “Say Lueke Luetge 10 Times Fast Night” at Safeco Field.

http://www.prospectinsider.com

by -Carson- on Dec 8, 2011 10:27 AM PST reply actions  

Everyone is ignoring the real upside to this

Geoff Baker’s blog is burning and my god is it hilarious

"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot

by beastwarking on Dec 8, 2011 11:42 AM PST reply actions   1 recs

So... Is there anyone of knowledge that knows if we should be angry about this or happy?

Was there someone else on the board that made more sense?

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Dec 8, 2011 1:12 PM PST reply actions  

While far from expert:

Everything I’ve read seems like the only thing that makes real sense if you have a hope for things to stick is take a pitcher and stick him in the bullpen. Easier to have them sit a bit if they have potential as opposed to a position player.
Beyond that, no clue!

by Aussie Mariner on Dec 8, 2011 5:33 PM PST up reply actions  

I was thinking along those lines.

Given Wedge’s bullpen management (assuming our bullpen can be on par to last year’s), I think we’ve got the best shot out of any club to hang on to a rule 5 reliever.

by Aussie Mariner on Dec 9, 2011 12:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Boy howdy.

So, here’s the deal. Despite the changes in the Rule 5, there’s generally talent available out there that you can pursue out there that either addresses present needs or works towards something two, three years down the road. Same as it was before.

The Orioles, for example, selected Ryan Flaherty. Flaherty, a left-handed bat, over four years has batted .278/.346/.462, with three years of slugging close to .500 and fifty+ walks in all of the full seasons he’s played in. He would be added to our third base pile, true enough, but if any of those guys proves a superior option, he’s already been groomed as a bat-first utility player who could play short in a pinch. Either he’s your starter or he’s a really neat complementary piece. [A contrarian at this point suggest that he’s the left-handed, more defensively versatile equivalent of what we think Catricala might be down the road]

Or we could have rolled the dice on replacing Lueke as far as system depth with Diego Moreno, who has posted some amazing K rates at times but overall has erratic health, or used a similar principle with the still-getting-healthy Bryce Stowell. Or if you want the less-strikeout prone, powerless, rangier left-handed utility infielder, Justin Henry. Or go through this big old list and see if anything catches the eye. Honestly, I’m more interested in Flaherty than anyone else and at this point am just listing names for their own sake. I know tarheels had a thing for Pedro Baez, who is toolsy but similar in some ways to Francisco Martinez and Triunfel.

Mostly, I’m frustrated by the fact that we had an opportunity to potentially add something that we needed, and instead decided to grab a player that is somewhat redundant (Moran, like I said) and whose skillset (LOOGY) is among the least useful players to have on your roster. To say that you can spend your #3 Rule 5 pick on a LOOGY is to indicate that we have our shit figured out in a way that I don’t think that we do. Regardless of what you think of the other players available, you can’t deny that this selection wholly lacks ambition.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 8, 2011 9:36 PM PST up reply actions   7 recs

That seems to be the case with the other Zduriencik-era Rule 5 picks

Kinda weird that they seem to treat it as a bit of a throw-away, although I guess it’s possible that they liked the picks at first, but then didn’t think they were worth keeping around once they saw them in ST.

by JLC on Dec 8, 2011 11:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks for that, JY.

Do you think it’s generally a better idea to pursue an injury risk type, so we can stash him on the DL if he looks promising but doesn’t have a place on the roster? I vaguely recall hearing clubs have done that in the past.

by Aussie Mariner on Dec 9, 2011 1:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Like a lot of things, it depends.

Some teams have gotten away with it but I seem to remember hearing a few years back about how they were going to put at least a token effort towards making sure that those players on the DL had actual injuries. I don’t know if that ever panned out to anything.

But the type of injury also matters. Elbow injuries have a pretty good return on players getting back to their usual levels of velocity, etc. It’s not perfect, but it’s one of the better arm injuries to get. Consequently, I’ve seen a few times where a team will try to protect a guy with an elbow issue on the 40-man roster even though he hasn’t pitched all that much. Shoulder injuries however, that’s pretty much damaged goods. It’s usually an indicator that the player will be somewhat broken for the rest of their career and may never get back to their usual levels of production. It’s not common that anyone would want to take a flier on them.

The rest, it’s a case by case thing. If you’re committed to taking an injured player, you’re also going to have to be fairly certain that you’re going to get value out of them and that there may be some way of determining whether those injuries were freak incidents or a chronic thing. You have to be confident in your team’s abilities to prevent the next injury, otherwise, you might as well take someone that isn’t busted.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 9, 2011 11:27 AM PST up reply actions  

Wow, that's exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

So if you had to guess, what is the real motivation for picking Luetge then? I doubt they’re that complacent, and while I still think that the GM has a little too much of a boner for his own decisions, I doubt “I liked him before” could have been the only reason. Any thoughts of your own?

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Dec 9, 2011 1:54 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I don't really know. I can't figure it out.

We got through 2009 just fine without a strong, left-handed reliever in the bullpen, and our attempts to acquire or convert one in the following years (Olson, Seddon, Laffey) probably ended up doing us more harm than good. Among the blind spots this organization seems to have: they waste Rule 5 picks, they have real affinities for players they’ve known from their time in other organization (you’ll find very few front offices that don’t have this issue), and their bullpen building can sometimes leave something to be desired.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors

by JY on Dec 9, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions  

It's some of these minor moves that have turned me against the front office in a lot of ways.

They’ve had some of the most successful trades I’ve ever seen, but then they call up Peguero, they waste rule 5’s, they keep Chone Figgins when they had an opportunity to trade him, they played certain players through obvious injuries (something I think should fall far more on the GM than the player)… there’s all these moves that go completely against logic, and mistakes I wouldn’t expect a smart front office to make.

It’s really hard to evaluate these guys because the little moves don’t end up being that noticeable – for example, no one besides you (and a lesser extent me) is really talking about this Rule 5 pick – but they’re just dumb sounding that it’s hard not to see how these aren’t bigger issues.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Dec 9, 2011 2:37 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

What do you personally blame (or credit) a front office for?

Do you think they should be held responsible for not placing players on DL, wasting Rule 5 drafts, calling up bad rookies, failing to make known trade offers, etc.? And to what degree, especially when compared to blockbuster trades, first round drafts, and free agent signings? In my eyes they’re fairly equal, but I suspect most people weight them according to impact.

...and now I'm here

by CapSea on Dec 9, 2011 3:31 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.

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