Rate the Mariners' Off Season
by Matthew on Jan 31, 2012 11:00 PM PST
in Seattle Mariners Polling
Email
PrintThe Seattle Mariners might be done making impactful moves to the Major League roster this winter. The Seattle Mariners off season so far.
Released: David Aardsma, Dan Cortes
Lost: Jeff Gray
Traded: Michael Pineda, Jose Campos, Josh Lueke
Signed: Darren Ford, Matt Fox, Steve Garrison, Chris Gimenez, Jarrett Grube, Aaron Heilman, Sean Henn, Hisashi Iwakuma, Josh Kinney, Jeff Marquez, Kevin Millwood, Scott Patterson, Oliver Perez, Guillermo Quiroz, Luis Rodriguez, George Sherrill, Phillippe Valiquette, Munenori Kawakasi
Traded For: Jesus Montero, Hector Noesi, John Jaso
Now obviously, many or all of us who are Mariner fans would have liked the winter to have gone better. I wish the Yankees had accepted Jason Vargas instead of Michael Pineda. I wish I didn't have a cold right now. I wish some asshole or group of assholes were not shooting sea lions.
Those are among things that I wish. However, that all three have occurred does not mean I am discontent with how things are. Except for that sea lion one because seriously, I hope whoever is doing that gets flayed. But I am fine with the Michael Pineda trade because I think it's within the realm of fair value and I am okay with my current cold because I probably only have it due to a week spent in snowy and fun Colorado. Being satisfied does not mean that you cannot envision better or did not wish for better. It means that circumstances are, on balance, roughly agreeable.
Given all that important preamble, judging against the baselines of your expectations at the conclusion of the 2011 regular season, how do you feel about the Mariners' off season so far?
416 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You missed Munenori Kawasaki in your list of signed players,
unless he is not eligible for this list for reasons I do not yet understand.
A real tough call between "whelms" and "underwhelms"
Went with “whelms” because I’m excited for the season and there hasn’t been a truly bad move. I like the Pineda trade more than most because I think Noesi is a non-number-5 big league starter right now and Campos is a who-knows with upside. But its tough to rate an off-season where the only new players that will likely make an impact are Jesus Montero, Hisashi Iwakuma, Hector Noesi, Kevin Millwood, George Sherrill, and Munenori Kawasaki (I think he beats out Rodriguez). There just wasn’t much of a turn-over. Other than Pineda→Montero, we’re kind of going to be watching the (healthy version) September 2011 Mariners to start off this year.
Did I miss John Jaso?
No, pretty sure not.
Also, I know I missed the Aardsma thing. When did that happen?
When my favorite offseason move is trading for John Jaso only to have them bring in another "C"...
Welp, that’s underwhelming to me.
This offseason reminds me
Of a night where I wanted to go out but nobody else is up for it, so I stay at home and do laundry. I had money and desire to go do something fun, but there was nothing going on. So I didn’t spend my money doing something I wouldn’t have enjoyed and did boring chores and played video games instead. If I spend that money on a particularly epic night out next week, I’ll be glad I stayed in and saved that money. If I don’t, I’ll have had as much fun as I would have if I’d gone out by myself and wasted $30 drinking alone at the bar, but I’ll be disappointed nothing else came up. Either way, it’s better than overdrafting my account on a bitch that doesn’t put out, and I’m glad I didn’t do that!
Rooting for lovable losers since 1984.
by seattlecougar on Jan 31, 2012 11:16 PM PST via Android app reply actions 2 recs
This offseason reminds me of a night when
No one will go out with me, I don’t even have $30 to spend at the bar because I have to spend my money on a lease for a crappy Dodge Stratus and my boss won’t give me a raise. Instead I spend my night on the computer, at home alone, thinking about what I could be doing with my 30 bucks, despondent over the fact that some hot chick I want to bang is at a better bar with some douche that has a lot of hair gel. Wait…that’s tonight.
Forever alone, right guys?! Please tell me more about hot chicks that you want to bang!
That’s what makes this site great!
by Eyebrows on Feb 1, 2012 11:17 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 13 recs
Let me just straight up say that if you somehow ended up with a lease on a Dodge Stratus in the year 2012 you really did something wrong and probably shouldn't go car shopping by yourself again
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
by Corco on Feb 1, 2012 6:24 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
I don't understand what made you decide that the smartest use of your car dollars was to end up making monthly payments on a minimum 5 year old Dodge Stratus that you're not even going to own at some point
Why not just buy a used car if you’re making payments anyway? Or did you somehow end up with a 5 year lease on a Dodge Stratus?
Either way you aren’t very smart when it comes to making car purchases
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
by Corco on Feb 1, 2012 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I mean, honestly you'd be better off just buying a bunch of $600 beaters and driving them until they die
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
She wouldn't have sex with you? That makes her a bitch, no question bro!!
Fucking bitches not fucking you. Yay misogyny!
Don’t turn this place into Reddit.
by Eyebrows on Feb 1, 2012 11:16 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 25 recs
Seriously. You can't get any more Reddit than these top two comments.
“I’m going to make this all about me by saying it’s just like a really boring story that nobody cares about. I am under the impression that my mundane personal experiences are actually really interesting because they happened to me. Also, women are bitches if they don’t fuck me and sluts if they fuck anyone else.”
by Eyebrows on Feb 1, 2012 11:22 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 16 recs
Nice, trumping the reddit superiority complex with LL superiority complex
Good move
by Dewey N on Feb 1, 2012 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 6 recs
It's not all bad. It's like SBN as a whole.
You just have to know where to go.
Ok. I guess with two reccomendations I have to check
what you crazy kids are doing with the internets. I’ll type Reddit in altavista as soon as AOL loads this next page.
Most of the users on Reddit are interested in whoring Karma and repeating bad jokes while running decent ones into the ground. That's the internet.
But there are plenty of ways to use Reddit to find concentrations of unique and interesting stuff.
My city and university's subreddits have a combined 500 people so it's a pretty cool way of getting to know people
That said, if you read the front page you’re asking to be hit of the head with repetitive internet memes, injokes, and stupid comments just for the sake of something called Karma. If you make an effort (or even just toy around a bit looking for your interests) you’re going to find some places you like. I’d suggest starting off with the “AskScience” subreddit and then branch out.
agree totally with this
there are some good (small) subreddits out there — ask science is a good one!
they also have some solid tech and game specific subreddits…
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Whelms Me
This offseason boiled down to Prince Fielder or no Prince Fielder. The result was the latter, which was not a surprise. The apparent reducing of payroll threatens to put me in underwhelm territory but the Montero trade saves it for me.
I can't be too disappointed because I don't think the Mariners are contending in 2012.
I get the sense that they did their due diligence and did what they could within reason. Hopefully this low-key offseason might slide a bit more money into the 2013-2016 spending pool.
Thoroughly whelmed.
I liked all of the moves that were made this offseason, but at the same time found myself wanting more.
It’s totally irrational, but I find myself wishing that this poll will be rendered irrelevant when Jack Z signs Edwin Jackson and Roy Oswalt on the same day.
To date, the 2011-2 Seattle Mariners' off season:
• underwhelms me
• whelms me
• overwhelms me
✓ Tom Wilhelmsen
by Mayo on Jan 31, 2012 11:31 PM PST reply actions 24 recs
Anytime I threaten to become "whelmed" I just remember one thing:
20 losses in a row.
I will change my status to whelmed when I think that the other team scoring 3 runs puts it out of reach for us. I hope we are there, and with this kind of young talent and potential who knows what could happen…. but the people we signed no doubt leave me underwhelmed.
I'm fairly whelmed.
I was starting to get excited for the team but the recent projection stuff was a pretty good reality check.
I feel like I’m not going to be rooting for wins this year as much as for rumors of Ichiro’s demise to be an exaggeration, Montero to start at catcher, Casper Wells to take the LF job from Mike Carp, and Guti to be a good, healthy ballplayer.
Of course, I also want Felix to succeed, Ackley to put up similar numbers as his ‘11 campaign, and Justin Smoak to break out. However, I think I’m more confident in those happening than the ones above. Also, wins would be pretty cool, too.
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Jan 31, 2012 11:51 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
If those things happen
wins will happen.
by Snuffleupagus on Feb 1, 2012 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
Solidly whelmed.
The team is clearly looking towards 2013 and beyond which is fine and the best way to go. Still, a signing or trade for a “big name” player would have done some good for the fanbase. Not a reckless move, but something to at least coax some interest from lapsed/casual fans badly needing something to get excited about.
So much depends on whether the young players improve.
It’s not impossible. We hope they do. Some of them really look promising. So we’ll see.
ignacio
Whelmed, by process of elimination.
I would be underwhelmed if we brought in bad players (we didn’t) or spent money for the sake of spending money.
I would be overwhelmed if we managed to pull off a brilliant trade that resulted quite clearly in more loss than gain or signed some crucial player for a reasonable contract.
As it stands, we made a few good though minor additions and exchanged a promising young pitcher for a promising young hitter. Changes were not made on a large scale, but I’m okay with that given the pieces in play and the fact that what was done this offseason does not prevent us from doing anything in the future. Whelmed it is.
by JY on Feb 1, 2012 12:08 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
I went with whelmed.
For pretty much the same reasons from everyone above. I don’t really see how we could have done a lot more with what was out there.
Whelmed.
Nothing really struck me as a real big ‘get really excited’ transaction, but there have been a number of solid moves made that I think will improve the team. If this years team can be relevant at the all-star break, I’ll call it a success.
I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".
by Romanes eunt domus on Feb 1, 2012 12:53 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Meh
I like all of the players we got back in the trades but I feel like we gave up too much value. It’s going to be nice to have some offense though. And I like the Iwakuma signing, mostly because the cost is friendly.
The rest has been pretty unexciting. It understandable that it was unexciting though, I think it’s good for the club that we kinda stood pat as far as major signings go. Save that for next offseason.
That said, I would've really preferred we went out and got a third baseman somehow
And it sucks that we apparently cut payroll by a lot if that’s what the plan is, as Dave was saying below.
At this point...underwhelmed.
I kind of agree with Dave’s USSM post (to a point) in that I think it’s possible to build for the future/let the kids play AND add a couple more pieces now to bring up the total in the win column by just a bit more. I think the Ackley/Smoak/Montero core is solid & will be fun to watch but honestly, Seager & (sigh) Figgins platooning 3rd doesn’t instill me with much confidence & if they’re trying fill out the rotation while Paxton/Hultzen marinate in AAA then I think we could have done a little better than Millwood/Iwakuma. We didn’t have to go after a Prince Fielder superstar type but I wouldn’t have been mad at another smaller sized move or 2, which may still be coming for all I know. I’m definitely still excited for the season but as far as off season moves go, I just can’t help but feel a tad underwhelmed.
Does mobile voting not work for anyone else?
Aaron Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction - John Morgan
by Fearless Frog on Feb 1, 2012 4:05 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Mobile voting has never worked for me.
Even if I go to “Full Site”
by sofa_king on Feb 1, 2012 6:11 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Disappointed the Ms look to start the season with a significantly reduced payroll again
I know its dumb to sign players simply for the sake of spending money, but a solid pitcher or a real third baseman would sure have been nice and there are enough unwanted contracts out there that a creative GM like Zduriencik ought to have made something work.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 6:28 AM PST reply actions
Underwhelmed.
The Montero trade was very exciting (DINGERS!), and Iwakuma is intriguing, but every thing else this off season has been extremely underwhelming.
Well thank God you didn't forget Munenori Kawasaki, Matthew
anyone care to venture some predictions on how he’ll do this year?
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 7:49 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Because it is much like the Mariner's offseason and apropos of Matthew's cold:
“It used to be if you caught a cold you were stuck with it for a week tor so. Now you can take modern miracle drugs and be over it in just seven to ten days.” Mark Twain, 1895. Which is to say the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I'm not sure I could have been underwhelmed.
Coming off of such an awful season, I didn’t expect we would make a big FA splash or anything of that ilk. The Montero trade was exciting, but it’s not like it was a huge win and now we’re going to win a bunch of games in 2012. Iwakuma on the cheap is nice, but nowhere near overwhelming.
Unfortunately, so far Z hasn’t been able to pull off a Cliff Lee or Gutierrez/Vargas trade redux.
Mariners fan in SF :: @Eric_Dykstra
This was kind of a meh offseason as a whole.
There were not that many big free agents.
C.J. Wilson, Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Darvish, and I’m sure I missed a few, but many. Everyone of these players were very expensive and as the smart people have discussed would not have pushed the M’s over the edge.
I forgot to add
I really wish Z would’ve figure out a way to upgrade Third base.
Well, if the rumors are true, he attempted to trade Pineda for Brett Lawrie.
So there’s that.
Aaron Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction - John Morgan
by Fearless Frog on Feb 1, 2012 10:06 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Key words: rumor and attempted.
I don’t blame Z for not getting it done. The Blue were likely asking for way too much.
I put whelmed, but I'm strangely optimistic.
It may be a small thing, but there are so many players on this team that I’m rooting for or that I like. Wells, Guti, Ackley, Ryan, Ichiro, Montero – I remember years past when I would actively dislike players on our roster and hate watching them pitch or bat. Now, even if a guy sucks, I have that irrational-love thing going on. If Smoak hits .240/.330/.400 for the entire season, I’ll tell anyone who will listen that he’s THIS close to breaking out.
So, irrationally lovable players = whelmed with upside.
by McExpos on Feb 1, 2012 8:25 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Whelmed I guess.
I like the Pineda trade, but the apparent Payroll cut is bringing me down.
A positive outlook on the payroll
Is the M’s will have more money for next free agent market, which looks a lot better than this year’s.
Only if that is the way the cut actually works.
In 2008 the payroll was $117 million, the next year the team cut payroll by $20 million to $98 million. If what you are saying is true then payroll should have gone back up in 2010, it didn’t, and it has continued going down ever since.
Reduced budget effect on retained earnings
I keep hearing this discussion and no one points out the obvious. Last years loss ate into the retained earnings surplus by a significant amount (IIRC about $10M). By balancing the budget this season (and maybe saving another $5M all other things being equal), retained earnings will be there to finance payroll expansion, as opposed to being, you know, gone….
On the basis of the moves alone, ~whelmed.
I am very displeased that payroll has seemingly been cut by a not insignificant amount, so that pushes me firmly into underwhelmed territory.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 1, 2012 8:33 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
Edwin Jackson is still a possibility
If we signed him to a one-year I’d be whelmed but I’m underwhelmed right now for the same reason you are.
Maybe he just doesn't want to play here
Otherwise it just makes too much sense to not do it
I had heard such rumors that teams had already offered him 3 years.
But who knows. It could still be plausible that he’d sign a one year deal and try to up his value.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 1, 2012 11:51 AM PST up reply actions
If they trade Vargas for prospects it certainly does
though I don’t know who would take on Vargas if Jackson is going for a one-year deal.
Right now the rotation is Felix-Vargas-Millwood-Iwakuma-Noesi with Beavan and Furbush as depth. Jackson certainly makes the rotation better, but does it make it better for 2013? I’m less sure. I’d still like them to make the move if they can, but I could see a reason why they wouldn’t
In my opinion, fuck Millwood
You could easily just have him “compete” for a spot in spring training then let him go since it’s a minor league deal. Which would open a spot for Jackson. Maybe that’s not what they signed him for but, man, I would so much rather have Jackson in there.
Millwood's just one person though, is my point.
It wouldn’t be the worst case for the Mariners to be having a rotation of Felix, Vargas, Millwood, Jackson, Iwakuma at the big league level come July while the Rainiers rotation is Paxton, Hultzen, Beavan, Furbush, Snow, Ramirez, but I can certainly see how the team might think adding another SP isn’t a huge need for them.
I can see your point, I just think beyond Felix, Paxton, and Hultzen there's a whole lot of probably expendable or unknown quantities by comparison
I’m okay with ditching Vargas. Who knows how Iwakuma will transition to MLB or how he’ll end up bouncing back from his injury. Noesi is a bullpen transition experiment. Beavan doesn’t appear to be very good. Jackson probably represents a decent upgrade over somebody in the 4 or 5 slot down the road.
I get that maybe that upgrade may not be enough to justify the cost if he’s demanding the moon but if the team has money to spend (which maybe they don’t) and there aren’t any hitters left on the market that can fill other needs….I’d say why not?
And I mean if he's forced to take a one year deal, then you don't need to worry about making room
It makes less sense if it’s three years, sure, but Noesi and Iwakuma are kinda unknowns, there’s a decent chance somebody doesn’t work out.
I'm a little underwhelmed.
I like or am at least okay with all the moves they’ve made, but and the fact that a number of guys that seemed like they could have helped us went to other teams on reasonable deals makes me feel that the team could have done a lot better. Then again, maybe Jack Z’s hands were tied from the beginning with a major payroll slash, which would be disappointing in a different way. I almost get back to “whelmed” by the fact that we totally “missed out” on Price.
And by Price, I mean Prince.
Typing is hard if you’re dumb.
by VivaAyala on Feb 1, 2012 8:38 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Whelmed, largely because Z has gone from crafty GM to simply decent GM
I no longer believe or assume he has a Cliff Lee level trade up his sleeve. He’s not made any more Figgins style blunders, though. I think he did as well as could be expected this winter with what was reasonably available. Call it going from “In Z We Trust” to “Yep, Z’s Still Here. Ok. Good.”
I’m anxious to see a full healthy season from the heart of this roster, and get a true look at the future of the M’s for the first time in years (a look unclouded by nostalgic holdovers or blue light specials). I’m not giddy for opening day, but I’m not frustrated or resigned as I was at the start of last season.
by Chris_FB on Feb 1, 2012 8:37 AM PST via mobile reply actions
The Cliff Lee and J.J. Putz trades were highway robbery
if Jack Z pulled one of those off every year, teams would probably stop trading with him
Not such substantial highway robbery as to prevent Cashman from trading with him
But yes, true, he could only do so much, I suppose.
Figgins signing was fine at the time.
There was no indication that he was going to go cliff diving and as such it is irresponsible to blame Zduriencik entirely.
by abender20 on Feb 1, 2012 10:48 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 2 recs
And quite frankly, $36M really isn't that awful
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
I didn't say I blame Zduriencik entirely.
I liked the Figgins signing at the time too, since I thought we were going to in-his-Angels-prime Figgins.
That was one of the few GMZ move I never really liked,
in part, I’m sure, because of my prejudice against the Angels. Everyone else seemed to like it, so I had started to talk myself into it when the ’10 season started but Figgins was never that consistent at the plate, he was on the wrong side of thirty. . .but even I never would have thought he nosedive so quickly and so massively. Plus, it is not a crippling contract.
I know that you/LL isn't responsible for #6org,
but I think this speaks to the core issue that people were upset with at the time – that there was far too much love being given to Jack Z before he had really earned it, but it was hard for any criticism or ‘tap the brakes’ argument to stick because of the people who were making the arguments.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 11 recs
That's bullshit.
He had earned it. It just turned out to be the highest point for him so far. Reasonable people can disagree with the ranking but the whole #6org response was because people are petulant fucks who cannot stand to think that they and anything they are associated with is inferior in any possible way to anything else.
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 11:43 AM PST up reply actions 25 recs
Woah.
This seems like an overly aggressive response.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
#6org meme was the absolute stupidest thing in internet baseball history.
I hope everyone who used it seriously loses internet privileges for their life
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 12 recs
You seem mad.
I think it’s fairly clear that I’m trying to have a reasoned discussion about the merits of placing high levels of confidence in people/players based on limited data.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
It was never intended as a regressed org ranking. They were snapshots.
So limited data isn’t much of an issue. Furthermore, it bugs me to no end how much shit Dave Cameron, and Cameron alone, got for that when, as has been mentioned a quadrillion times, it wasn’t solely his ranking. He did the write-ups, but the rankings were an entire FanGraphs staff effort.
At that time, Zduriencik had made killer moves, hired a staff with a tremendous background and brought in Tom Tango as a stats consultant. The Mariners had a history of high payroll commitment and as many financial resources as any team in their division, which didn’t have a super power.
I agree they should have been lower. I ranked them lower. But they were certainly worthy of something in the bottom half of top 10 based on the information available to the people ranking them at the time.
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 11 recs
Ok, let's start where we agree,
I agree that it’s surprising that the Mariners aren’t spending more and I expect that to go back up as they become more competitive. I don’t think the Mariners should expect to have a team payroll amongst the top 5 teams (which creates a problem for the #6 ranking), but they have enough money to compete.
I agree that Zduriencik had made really good moves and I am also a big fan of Tango. The issue that I [and many other reasonable, people who were not foaming at the mouth] were trying to say is that the ranking of him and his front office was too high given the limited data that we had. Other teams have brought in people considered to be very bright in the realm of advanced baseball analysis (Red Sox with Epstein and Bill James) or had front offices who were known to be familiar with and generally act in accordance with that thought (Texas, Tampa, etc).
It’s not that I’m saying Zduriencik is a bad GM, or even that he wasn’t a good GM. It’s that we already had a long track record for the people who were ‘at the top’ and it would be hard for anybody to be able to overcome that in such a short time.
Regarding Dave Cameron, I know that I and many others were very, very critical of the way that he handled the response to that. Advanced baseball analysis borders on an academic pursuit at times and in a sharp contradiction to how Tango runs his site, Dave Cameron came across as petulant, hot headed, and arrogant. I’m sure he caught a lot more heat than he deserved, but he also handled it rather poorly from the start.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I acknowledge that argument, but don't agree with it for reasons I already stated.
One part is that we (the people ranking) had more information than the general public did/does. The other part is that the limited track record of the GM was simply not germane to the ranking. And if that’s your main concern, then I can’t see much of a gulf in disagreement. Honestly looking back, where would you have ranked them?
There are reasonable people who argued that they should have been something like 10th. I have no beef with those people. Those people did not then go around to every Mariners post on FanGraphs regardless of author, every Dave Cameron post regardless of topic and quite a few posts here and post LOLOLOL #6org!! LOL
So, my apologies that the topic touches such a nerve.
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
And your compatriots from LSB are providing a supreme example of how to be little twerps
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry,
it’s something resembling our specialty, though we usually try to keep it over there.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
And just for you, LSB
I wasn’t calling your entire blog twerps. Just knockoutking and Bface for coming over here and posting as they did. And they haven’t been banned despite some of you, and the rest of SBN’s, assumption that I/we ban people immediately for stepping on one of our (blog agreed to) rules when they first join.
I joined in 2009.
I have read since then on and off, making less than 5 posts.
I did come and post a gif, that was my fault for not reading the rest of the subthread.
I get that you are a Mod for LL. No reason for you to be difficult with people, just because you can.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
I'm not difficult with people just because I can be.
You won’t believe me, but I don’t get a rush of power from moderating a blog. I’d really rather not be doing it.
You truly believe you are not difficult with people on here?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
I am asking you in general.
Do you think you are not difficult with people on here, both LL’ers and people from other SBN blogs?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
I know I'm difficult with them.
The internet, in general, is a shitshow of anonymous-driven base emotional comments. I don’t want LL to be like the comments threads on MLB.com, or ESPN.com for example.
Neither does Jeff. Neither does most of the people who stick around here. We want different, what we think is better and more enjoyable and unfortunately that’s not possible without holding people to a higher standard and generally that means being strict to start with.
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 29 recs
Ok then
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
I know you're asking him and not me, but
I think he works hard to enforce rules. Sometimes it comes off harsh, but the people who read LL regularly want the rules enforced.
Meme’s and crap like the Opera .gif are disgusting and take away from what we are here discuss. You’ve gone far enough off topic as it is, now either contribute or go and enjoy Beltre like I wish I could.
Look
I already apologized.
disgusting? your call. not like I posted a goatse pic.
Clearly, the rules at LL are enforced. I am sure had I continued to post gif’s and pictures and type in non-caps I would get banned.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Further addendum,
What I ask is for mutual respect on the blogs. LL and LSB handle their communities differently. We don’t seek to impose our way on anyone else. Let’s go Tribe wants to make fun of us for using subject lines? Viva El Birdoes wants to assume that a single misspelled comment here will get you banned? Whatever. I don’t care. It just makes them look petty and stupid to me. But we ask that our way be respected on our site.
Though I don’t like the way LSB flows, what I don’t do is link to cherry-picked comment threads and use it as a way to paint Adam Morris as a wimp or kowtow because of how much he lets slide by. I don’t bring up here what you say over at LSB. And for the most part I try to stop anyone here from doing the same. We’ve long held a policy that trolling on any other blogs will get you banned here.
And I find it annoying what does get said at LSB. When a couple things here make their way to LSB and often get taken out of context because frankly you can’t know the context unless you’re here at LL all the time. You see me snap at some poster for something seemingly innocuous, but you didn’t see the 1,000 previous comments that poster made that were intentionally straddling the line and provoking others for instance.
It’s rarely, if ever, “why they do it that way,” but rather “oh, he must be so-and-so type of person.” That’s unfair and makes me think far less of your community that you partake in it so.
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 15 recs
xx
It’s rarely, if ever, "why they do it that way," but rather "oh, he must be so-and-so type of person." That’s unfair and makes me think far less of your community that you partake in it so.
Welcome to the internet.
Where people will continue meme’s that have run their course. where people will hate you for nothing other than the fact you run a Mariners blog. Where people will unfairly judge you based on one or two comments they have seen linked before. Where things are taken out of context almost all of the time. Where sarcasm does not always come across as sarcasm.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Feb 2, 2012 5:58 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So we should accept that rather than trying to build a place that doesn't tolerate it?
Sorry, that’s a bunch of crap.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 2, 2012 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 8 recs
And Welcome to Lookout Landing
Where most of this crap isn’t tolerated, thankfully.
by ThundaPC on Feb 2, 2012 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Speaking as one who loves lurking at Lookout Landing but is less excited about participating...
I think a bit more work could be done to be welcoming while still strictly enforcing the community’s standards. It’s commendable and entirely justified to create and enforce a set of standards designed to create a dynamic here that is in many ways preferable to what can be found in pretty much any other blog.
At the same time, however, it’s important to recognize how different LL is from what people are accustomed to encountering in the sports blog world (or the blog world in general, for that matter). Given the freewheeling nature of most of the internet, it takes a bit of getting used to for newcomers to understand that they need to learn about the agreed-upon standards for commenting and posting here and observe how things are done for a bit before they jump in and start expressing themselves. Just as they should respect the way this community works, the community ought to respect the difficulty of that transition.
One idea to facilitate that process would be a sort of canned response to inappropriate comments from newcomers. Something like:
“Welcome to Lookout Landing! At this blog, we strive to create a community that fosters high-quality discussion of Mariners baseball and other topics. The group of regular posters here has agreed on a set of standards that we expect to be followed if you want to participate in the discussion. You can read about these standards here: [link]. Unfortunately, this post does not abide by those standards, but we’re confident you can pick them up and start participating in no time!”
I don’t know if this approach has already been tried, but I think it might be easier to not have to deal with these annoyances personally each and every time. If someone reacts to the initial response negatively, you could have a canned follow-up like:
“We’re sorry you don’t find the community here to your liking. We’re sure that if you stick around and observe how our standards work in practice, you’ll come to appreciate them as much as we do, but if you’d rather go elsewhere, we completely understand! Lookout Landing’s not for everyone, after all!”
Sorry for the huge block of text, but what do people think?
I think it sounds patronizing, frankly.
And I’d imagine a lot of people would take it in such a way.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 2, 2012 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Fair enough
But I think patronizing is preferable to confrontational.
And also, we have this conversation every year
LL has never been unwelcoming to people who are willing to follow the rules, and we’ve never been shy about politely asking people to do so.
by seattlebruin on Feb 2, 2012 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
This is a pretty critical point.
We get looked on as unwelcoming to some sets, probably because they see us get into it with a few select people and think that we’re isolationist and cliquey. That’s not really the case. Sometimes it’s more obviously not the case when we run into those delightful cases of “this is how I always talk on the internet and screw you for not liking it.” That’s about the worst people can get about community standards. But when it gets into that murky “less is more”/“don’t be a punctuation mark” territory, that’s riddled with nuance and is pretty hard for people to get a handle on.
by JY on Feb 2, 2012 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The fundamental issue, to me, is that the people who act out and buck against the rules
are usually the ones who get confrontational in the first place. Nadingo’s general idea is a good one, it’s just that the audience in question is much less likely to be receptive to rationality. That’s no revelation. Patronizing is probably okay when the canned response shows the right intent.
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2012 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That's kind of what I was trying to get at (clumsily)
People who aren’t receptive to rationality don’t deserve anything more than a canned response and a ban if they react rudely. People who respond with good intent can then be interacted with. My thought was that canned responses might reduce the fatigue of having to actually interact with people who have no interest in learning anything about the community.
by Nadingo on Feb 2, 2012 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm just sayin'
Most arguments are really about context.
by GasolineSnuggie on Feb 5, 2012 4:21 AM PST up reply actions
It was too easy to pass up.
I can’t be a Jack Wilson and take myself out.
Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good.
No worries, it was just surprising.
I would have had them lower based on present talent and talent in the farm system. I felt similarly about the Mariners front office at the time as I did about the Indians with Antonetti lurking in the wings, though I would have rated the Mariners front office higher.
If I may pry, what was the nature of this other information? I remember it referenced at the time and I was critical because it lent itself to bias.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Quite a bit of contact with multiple members of Mariners front office, past and present.
So, for one example, we had knowledge of just how much (heavily) they were amping up the saber-route in terms of player analysis and that Jack Z was well known for his scouting prowess with Milwaukee. It’s one-sided of course, but that didn’t make it untrue.
See, that's what I had assumed it was.
And I’d probably rather have Tango than anyone else right now.
But don’t you see how this opens it up to bias? How do you know if this is (significantly) better than what the Red Sox or Rays or Rangers or Athletics are doing? I know the Red Sox have a decent sized stat department and their own set of stats; the Rays use some blend of scouting and advanced analysis (that goes beyond stats), how could you know that the Mariners were doing it better than everybody else?
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
Well, for one, they weren't ranked above Boston, Texas or Tampa.
Secondly, I freely acknowledged it was biased and one-sided. But I didn’t say that made them better than other teams, just that we knew more and therefore their rank went up.
That’s consistent with the entire exercise, we graded on the information we knew. From the machinations of the front offices (it wasn’t just with the Ms where we were granted some inside knowledge), to the track record of the GM to date, to the players on roster, to the financials spent in the past. We went with what we knew. We couldn’t have gathered the exact same info for every organization.
No, they weren't,
but one of my complaints at the time was that in order for the Mariners to be ranked that highly given the relative weaknesses in major league talent and let’s say average spending and minor league talent was that the front office component would have to rate the Mariners as the very best to compensate for no other aspect being in the top 10. Dave tried to address that the next year when writing about the weights applied, but it still hard for me to see how the Mariners rated #1 in the front office or how they rated in the top 10 in other categories.
I’m sure you are tired of defending it by now, so if you’ll just address this, I’ll leave it alone. Thanks in advance.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not tired of it.
I’m tired of dealing with some of the other people who seem bent on creating a self-fulfilling prophecy on how they’ll be treated here (Man, LL is so nazi, they hate it when peope do X, watch me go over there and do X and I bet they ban me!!)
I’m happy to have a back-and-forth on it or anything if it stays away from that however.
To your comment, I can’t say for certainty the rankings within each category. It was almost two years ago. But I think the consensus at the time was that Mariners weren’t weak in Major League talent. For example, here’s CAIRO in February projecting the Mariners to have the best record in the AL West.. They were, I think, roughly average compared to the entire MLB, but divisional strength was a factor. The Mariners had a good chance to make the playoffs due to the perceived weakness and only 4-team AL West and once in the playoffs had a roster that would seem well built for short series.
If you look at the CAIRO playoff percentages, the Mariners are somewhere in the 5-10th highest range.
Furthermore, the young talent on the team was considered the driving force of the Major League roster. Minor League wasn’t a ranking, young talent was. So players like Felix and (erroneously as it turns out) Jose Lopez and Rowland-Smith made them seem more like a team ready to compete for the next few years, not just one.
So, what I think is that the ranks were roughly 10th in Major League talent, average in young talent and 5-10th in management/ownership.
Ah,
that’s a great explanation. I guess I was just less confident in some of those young players than y’all were and/or that I had a right to be. I still disagree with it, but I at least understand some of the thought behind it now. Thanks.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
And we should have been less confident as well.
Because again, reasonable disagreement is not the problem, and never was the problem. But #6org morphed into something that was not reasonable. I can’t think of a TX-equivalent off hand. Maybe if every time anyone tried to talk about politics in Texas you were inundated with Kennedy assassination comments.
xx
But #6org morphed into something that was not reasonable.
It morphed into a meme. It happens all the time on the internet. As with almost all meme’s, if you let them run their course they go away.
When you handle it the way you have in the past (not you specifically, Dave, M’s people, etc) it is no wonder it continues to live years past the time it actually happened.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
xx
But #6org morphed into something that was not reasonable.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
I agree
you are still going to get a random “#6org lol m’s” comment from time to time
but it will die, eventually…
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
I don't require a response but I'll just leave this out there.
You have to be able to take a joke on the internet. There were a lot of respected people that made fun of Dave – people that at the very least you would have had respect for prior to the ranking. Even if Dave hit on the Mariners being a dynasty but still missed on RRS (for instance), someone would have made fun of him for that. And I don’t think that alone evinces mean intentions; the internet just seems like a great forum to take witty shots at people.
I think what really separated the millions of prognostications that are wrong is the appearance of bias and what appeared to be Dave not taking the joke very well. And regardless of the first, I think it could have been diffused by the second.
And I only bring that up because a lot of the time, it appears that you can’t take a joke very well on this board. But you obviously don’t have to change your behavior for me or anybody else. I don’t think I’d change my behavior for a Mariners fan.
I don't think you realize how much of a pain it is to moderate the comments on LL
Jeff/Matthew having a short leash when it comes to crap is probably good thing. It doesn’t mean you were necessarily trolling, but posting annoying things when you have no prior reputation on the site is going to get you on the potential troll watch list pretty quick
Oddly enough, I joined LL before you.
But my reputation doesn’t precede me.
I’ve been thinking on and off for the last 20 minutes how to wrap this in a pithy but non-confrontational comment and I just can’t without it appearing too hostile. So I’ll just say it: don’t use adjectives in the place of adverbs.
by ab03 on Feb 1, 2012 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
There's a difference between a joke and a taunt.
Any many (not all, I never said all) turned into taunts. And for a while, we did just ignore them. But eventually we got tired of it.
And I suspect that people who form opinions about LL don’t regularly read it but instead are only linked here when there’s a hissy fit.
Why do you really care that much if people are taunting you on the internet?
if you feel solid about your decision why do you even respond to those people other than to say, once, the reasoning behind your decisions?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Your assuming I/we didn't state the reasonsing.
I/we did. Many times. Unfortunately, that doesn’t magically stop people who just want to taunt/troll. And I don’t really care what they do, so long as they don’t do it here.
Fair enough
Ill shut up about the topic now.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Additionally,
I thought I was clear in referencing only those that weren’t joking when I wrote:
I hope everyone who used [the #6org meme] seriously
To me, seriously meant as a serious insult. Not as in a joke. I still stand by that the majority of users were not joking.
Sure
I mean, I didn’t pay attention to fangraphs or LL enough to know but I can see that there were probably people out there who weren’t offering anything of substance or just poking fun at someone they still respected – they just wanted to be dicks.
I still think the best thing is to ignore the idiots but still acknowledge the people that are joking. Lots of people were joking about it. And even if he was married to the process, you acknowledge that the ranking looks bad compared to the results. Being defensive or fighting back doesn’t seem to diffuse any problem.
But I also know how satisfying it can be.
So if you freely acknowledge that a list is biased and one-sided
What is the value of said list?
Again, not being a “troll” or messing with you — just asking what is in my opinion a valid question.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
The entire list wasn't biased and one-sided.
To repeat from above
That’s consistent with the entire exercise, we graded on the information we knew. From the machinations of the front offices (it wasn’t just with the Ms where we were granted some inside knowledge), to the track record of the GM to date, to the players on roster, to the financials spent in the past. We went with what we knew. We couldn’t have gathered the exact same info for every organization.
It wasn’t a complete picture. I think a complete picture would be impossible and about just as useless since things change so fast. The list was the best attempt to gauge where each team was at the time and for the next couple years based on the information that we had at or disposal. That’s all.
Then you're in the vast minority.
98% of people did not want a reasoned discussion. They wanted to troll
I don't read the comments there that often
but it seems like anytime he writes ANYTHING about the Mariners he gets trolled
Not just the Mariners
He gets trolled every single time he writes about anything. People really hate that guy.
I realize that part of the kerfuffle might be because my response came across as a direct accusation of you.
That wasn’t what I meant and I’m sorry it reads that way.
My intention was constrained only to the obvious 6org trolls. I think it’s incorrect to state that too much faith too quickly in Jack Z was the core issue for most people. It was a legitimate issue for some people, I hope I’ve clarified below why I still think it’s overblown, but the “bullshit” I was referring to was the impression that most people were making rational objections in the first place. I found most of them to be deaf to debate.
by Matthew on Feb 1, 2012 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
#6org meme was basically:
“Hey, here’s a team that’s sucked for awhile and now actually has some hope going into this season. OH LOOK, they crashed and burned, THAT’S HILARIOUS. Let’s mock what hope they had by ironically pointing out one of the more extreme examples of hype that media figures gave them.”
When you actually have excitement for your team and then they absolutely fail that’s going to leave a sore spot. Don’t be surprised when people get angry when you come in and poke at that sore spot.
by ChristopherA on Feb 1, 2012 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
Unfortunately
Since the Twins collapsed after fangraphs ranked them #6 last year, I’m afraid there may now be a #6org curse.
Z seems to rarely have massive fuck ups, and that already puts him above a good number of GMs.
The fact that he seems to have a good eye for talent and a decent ability in trades is just bonus.
by the other side on Feb 1, 2012 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
We have way more talent in the organization than we did when he started.
That’s all you can really ask for from a GM. The fact that we’ve sucked the last couple of years is a combination of bad luck and the fact that we started so low.
by mebpenguin on Feb 1, 2012 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. Our farm system is actually legitimate at this point, even with some guys "graduating" to the big club.
by the other side on Feb 1, 2012 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
Our farm system is farm beyond legitimate.
Over the course of a few years it went from consistently being ranked as a Bottom 5 farm system to a Top 5. Maybe it’s because I haven’t followed minor league ball for long, but that’s just insane to me.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Where has it been ranked as a Top 5 system
if you don’t mind me asking? I know it’s deep with pitchers, but now that Ackley has graduated and Franklin has a few more questions, does it have the position player depth to compete with the Blue Jays, etc?
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
Ah, ok.
I know that Sickels is improving, but let’s just say I don’t yet think of him on the same level as some of the other sources.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
I've seen individual team rankings
but not organizational ones, which I think they list here when they’re out. I’d love to see them though
I think we are talking about the same thing
and I believe they were in the BA Prospect Handbook that’s already gone out. I didn’t buy it but someone on LSB did and posted that the Nationals were #1 and the Rangers were #2 (and nothing else).
That ranking was done before the Gio Gonzalez trade.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
Project Prospect had us #1
They’re not BA or BP but hey
Top heavy
and Montero still having prospect status helps significantly
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
Ah, forgot that part.
Feels like double counting to say that the big league team has improved and then still use Montero as a sign that the farm system is improved.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
True, but it really is true in this case
Montero is very much a prospect, yet also very likely to help the big club this season.
We also have a lot of high risk/high upside depth in the minors from our Latin American signees
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
I see.
I didn’t know if there were perhaps some guys who were now being thought of as Top 100 guys that perhaps I had missed. Thanks.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 12:53 PM PST up reply actions
Nah, more like guys who are Top 100 watch guys if they have good seasons
so 16-18 year old international guys. The pitchers outside the Big Three are mostly lower upside guys
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that was my impression.
By the way, I’m still mad that y’all were able to sign Guillermo Pimentel.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
Wouldn't have been fair to let him go to Texas
would have hit .150/.155/.600 every year
The Rangers park adjustment obviously is too low,
we needed somebody to completely throw off the scale.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
A month+ of 100 degree days and a short porch,
what more can we do?
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
We need to further amplify the jetstream?
I guess American Airlines is headquartered relatively close by…I’ll see what I can do.
As compensation, mayhaps you can keep Montero and his bat of doom away from our park, hmmm?
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
You're a greedy bear...
Maybe I could interest you in some barbecue and a local brew instead?
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
Are there good breweries in the DFW area?
it’s very high on my visit list
visit this one
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
We're getting there.
A semi-regular as LSB has just started one up with his friends and while I haven’t had any of their official beer yet, I’ve had some of his homebrew stuff and it was excellent.
It is called Deep Ellum Brewing Co [Deep Ellum is an area east of downtown Dallas that used to be a big club/concert/bar area but has petered out somewhat since then].
The other in D/FW is in Fort Worth and is called Rahr. It’s not amazing beer, especially in comparison to what’s available in the Northwest, but it’s pretty solid. If you were to try one, I’d recommend this: Rahr Bourbon Barrel Aged Winter Warmer.
Houston also has a decent brewer now in St. Arnold’s, with the Elissa IPA being the the more favored, especially if you can find one it at a place that serves Cask Elissa IPA.
Other than, there’s…Shiner.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
What I wouldn't give
to be able to get Self Righteous Ale on tap. Le sigh.
It’s no coincidence that virtually all of the places I’m considering for residency have a good brewery profile (West Coast, Colorado, NE). What else is in San Diego outside of Stone?
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
Heh... my local bar has SSR on perma tap and I don't even order it anymore because I'm bored of it
Stone’s probably our fifth or sixth best brewery – we have Lost Abbey, Port Brewing (all four), Ballast Point (winner of GABF brewer of the year), Green Flash and Alesmith as the big ones.
There’s also about twenty or thirty smaller breweries that have some pretty neat stuff but aren’t real big distributors as of yet.
That sounds fantastic.
I’ve heard of Lost Abbey, but not the others. It’s the smaller brewers that interest me. My favorite part about trips to Quebec and Europe are how easy it is to find new and interesting beers. Sure, they aren’t all hits or the most amazing beers in the world, but I’m always left daydreaming about how great it would be to live in a place where you had access to so many different, local types of beers on tap.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
did my DEBC post work above? (the link?)
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Others have answered your question
There’s also an excellent FanPost tarheels24 did on our farm system.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
HIt's hard to judge Zduriencik overall because he has so far been working under extraordinary constraints
a terrible farm system, a last place roster, and tens of millions of dollars in sunk contracts. His one big FA signing – Figgins – has been an unmitigated disaster. its hard to really fault him for it since absolutely no one saw the collapse coming, but he did have a chance to trade him away, apparently.
The things we can judge, I think, are his drafts and ability to work trades. In these he has absolutely excelled.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
I think market this offseason was lame.
And Jack Z. made the most of it. He should not loose point because the market sucked. I think you’ve been reading too much Baker.
I sure don't enjoy reading Geoff Baker.
I can get mad thinking that the M’s have to endure such doucheyness from one of the cities biggest newspapers. It’s like a blight on the team.
But then LL and USS Mariner – so I guess it’s kind of OK in a cosmic sense.
by Easley on Feb 1, 2012 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
His article from this morning was a special blend of awful.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Baker is just the worst.
In any other journalism field, his style of yellow journalism and shit stirring would be rejected as ridiculous (and ironically, he rips on bloggers despite some of them having, you know, standards and research based arguments and all).
by Ballard Erik on Feb 1, 2012 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Lately I've been thinking, if the Seattle Times were smart...
They would fire Geoff Baker and try to hire Jeff Sullivan.
Perhaps Seattle is vastly different from Dallas in this regard,
but I have a feeling that the readers at large wouldn’t appreciate Jeff.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
No Seattle is not different in that regard
one thing blogging in general and SBN 2.0 in particular allows is a more direct interaction between readers and writers and readers and readers. There are many here who were once ‘readers at large’ but have changed after interacting with the mods and regulars.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
This is a terrible idea
Jeff would be so restricted if he had to write for a mainstream media outlet
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Honestly, Baker doesn't bother me that much.
Not that I actually like his stuff but on some level I feel like (sadly) he reflects the same opinions many of the Mariner’s (more casual) fanbase already has. I think Baker gets pinned with this blame for the “No Fielder?! The door to my fandom has been shut!!!1” types but honestly, I think they’d be there with or without his column. You could argue that he makes it worse but frankly, if he has those opinions others do too. I just lump him into the same pile of baseball writers that I don’t particularly agree with or enjoy reading but I don’t carry this giant hate parade in his honor every time he posts something.
You're right, those types of fans will and do show up everywhere.
The problem is that Baker’s articles facilitate and encourage that type of fan behavior. For the lack of a better term, it’s just one big circlejerk where detailed analysis and reason is frowned upon. I don’t expect LL or USSM levels of analysis from a more mainstream media, but there is a comfortable middle ground that could be achieved that Baker doesn’t even come close to reaching.
I’m not entirely sure what my point here is, I feel like that if I keep typing it’s just going to turn into a long, incomprehensible rant devoid of meaning. Maybe that I wish the casual fan had access to somewhat competent analysis instead of the particular brand of awful that Baker provides. Let’s go with that.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
I think Baker hurts the franchise.
He writes things like “The M’s are not planning to contend until 2015”. To me, this type of story seems almost designed to erode the patience of the fanbase during what is only year three in Z’s rebuild. Perhaps it even keeps away some casual fans who maybe would have taken the family to see a game or two, but decide to skip it this year, since the M’s “are so far away” from contention. Lost fans equals lost revenue for the organization, which I fear could lead to lower payrolls. Not to over exaggerate his influence, but the guy is prolific and relentless.
by Easley on Feb 1, 2012 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Also
Here is the M’s 2011 opening day line up Vs. what could be the 2012 opening day line up. (The 2012 list is based on position not batting order)
RF Ichiro Vs. Ichiro
3B Figgins Vs. Figgins/Seager
LF Bradley Vs. Carp/Wells
DH Cust Vs. Carp/ Montero
1B Smoak Vs. Smoak
C Olivo Vs. Montero/Jaso
CF Langerhans Vs. Gutierrez
SS Ryan Vs. Ryan
2B Wilson Vs. Ackley
by InSpokane on Feb 1, 2012 8:39 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
The lineup certainly looks better.
That being said, things don’t look quite as nice when you factor in the starting rotation too.
I hate batting order talk, but
for fucks sake Cust was the number four hitter and Bradley was the number three hitter.
It will be nice to have a LF who doesn't wear ear plugs this year.
Even for the home games.
Who cares about ear plugs.
It’ll be nice to have some in Left field who can hit better.
I agree with you.
Was just making a point that of how ridiculous it was
He was fun before it became apparent he both sucked and was not fun anymore
by OlSalty on Feb 1, 2012 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Yeah.
I wish he could have gotten his shit together.
by the other side on Feb 1, 2012 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Couldn't quite make it up to "whelmed"
I’m happy with the Montero deal. I like Iwakuma, and his contract terms are great. But the team failed to significantly increase the overall talent level during the offseason. If the team is better this season it will primarily be due to improvement by young players. And that was the case before the offseason began.
Agreed
Stating the obvious to play to my emotions, are you?
by GasolineSnuggie on Feb 5, 2012 4:49 AM PST up reply actions
His name hasn't come up much here...
… but would signing Jose Reyes have moved anyone to “overwhelmed”? Of the big free agents, he’s the one who filled a position of Mariner need the most (unless you think Franklin sticks at short and will arrive soon).
Short Stop is hardly
the position the M’s needed most. Without digging through defensive numbers I like Ryan better than Reyes.
Ryan v. Reyes?
Ryan’s about 2 Fangraphs WAR; Reyes more like 4-6 WAR.
Ryan was 2.6 WAR, Reyes 6.2 in a similar number of games
the Mariners don’t necessarily have a ton of money to spend and Reyes has never been a model of health. I’m happier with Ryan than I would have been with Reyes at what Reyes cost
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
Reyes is awesome but carries a lot of risk.
We already know he’s injury prone, and he may not have been as good in the American League.
Aaron Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction - John Morgan
by Fearless Frog on Feb 1, 2012 10:10 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Plus the Marlins landed first with a big offer
I’m not sure he was signable at all. And I tend to think that the M’s wouldn’t have reached for any Free Agent this year. But if they were, he made more sense to me at around $100m than Fielder did at $200m.
Certainly.
Although I think Reyes might be a more substantial risk than Fielder. With Fielder you’re looking at someone who should continue his peak production for a couple more seasons but then might rapidly decline. Whereas with Reyes, you’re gambling on a lot of injury concerns. A declining Fielder might have been more desirable than a perenially hurt Reyes, and that’s ignoring if he’d continue his excellence when he’s healthy.
Aaron Curry is the first Seahawk since Walter Jones to have a legitimate shot at Hall of Fame induction - John Morgan
by Fearless Frog on Feb 1, 2012 12:27 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Brendan? Ryan?
Isn’t he the placeholder for Franklin? 2 WAR at SS isn’t anything to sneeze at, but you might consider an upgrade, with Ryan as the IF utility guy.
Ryan is cheap and fun to have around
Nick Franklin is far from a sure thing, as good of a prospect as he is
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
Cheap and fun to have around...
… has its charms, I agree!
Underwhelmed.
As outlined here by D.Cameron, I am a little underwhelmed. Personally, I would have liked the 3B position to be addressed or another quality starter added.
Thats the real question here.
If payroll was cut on ownership’s orders, or if the front office didn’t like anyone else at the price they would cost, or if the front office was holding back early to see how Fielder played out and wound up missing out on the other guys they liked.
He does make some good points, but I don't know why payroll room matters so much
Either the cheap filler sorts of trades / free agents were gotten to more quickly by others, or the biggest free agents required crazypants Monopoly money spending. I don’t know who the Mariners were supposed to get for LF, 3b, or SP with a $95m – $100m payroll. It seems more about who was available in the first place rather than willingness to spend a reasonable amount.
3B addressed by whom? What quality starter?
I read a lot of wishes, but very few specifics, which makes me wary that people are doing fair counterfactuals
I personally didn't throw out any specific names to avoid rosterbation territory.
But 3B? Casey McGehee, Jerry Hairston. Quality starter? Kuroda, Edwin Jackson, Oswalt.
I'll take giving one of Seager/Liddi/Catricala a long look at 3B over the course of the season instead of giving McGehee or Hairston the starting job.
What we’re really lacking is an alright backup at 3B in case all of the kids tank horribly. As for the starters, I agree with you. Either Oswalt or Jackson would be great, provided they come at the right price.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
While I can see give Seager a shot...
I don’t know about Liddi or Cat. Cat isn’t going to stick at 3B, and Liddi’s contact rates suggest he might not do too well.
I like Seager ok but having him slotted in there as our opening day starting 3B is less than ideal to me.
I’d personally prefer to see Seager in the super utility role that (apparently) Figgins is filling and seeing somebody else in the full-time 3B slot. Seager could still get his ABs by filling in at 3B, SS and 2B.
I can't see Seager playing SS with any regularity
plus, he’s young enough that I want to see him get regular at bats and see what we have. There’s the very real possibility that his plate discipline and hit tool can make him an Ackley-lite player, and I’m all for this.
ed’s note: I may be pretty high on Seager
He started 8/55 games at SS last year
17% of his innings were at SS. Maybe he won’t see it with any regularity, maybe he won’t.
I like his hit tool though. With some better power and discipline he could turn into a Pedroia-lite.
I reallly like Seager's gap power.
I’m excited to see if his decreased K% at the end of the year is for real or not. He could be decent or better if that’s the case.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
I've seen some mention of Mark Reynolds being a hypothetical trade target this offseason in order to provide a little bit of stability at 3B.
Nothing official of course, although Dave has mentioned it a few times over at USSM. I wouldn’t mind that if it were to happen though.
Sorry if that’s a little bit rosterbaty.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
I understand the limitations.
I didn’t say their offseason was terrible or awful, and like many said before I do not know the circumstances (if Jack Z was working on some sort of limitations or not). Underwhelming is a little different than disappointing, or maybe this is just an argument of semantics.
by Ballard Erik on Feb 1, 2012 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
I'm a little underwhelmed but I am completely bored out of my mind.
Even when Bavasi was signing Jarrod Washburn and trading for Erik Bedard, at least we had something to talk about. The only thing we talked about for the most part was how we might or might not sign Prince Fielder. The recent trade helps a little but its been so boring. Good job to Jeff and Matthew. I have been entertained by the posts all season but the M’s didn’t give you much to work with.
I forgot that Brendan is another link in the Putz trade.
Which also connects him to the Randy Johnson trade via Jeremy Reed.
I'm a Rangers fan who occasionally ventures over,
but I’ve been wondering…why isn’t there a Cespedes watch like there was for Prince Fielder? Doesn’t a move like that ostensibly make more sense than giving Prince Fielder 9 years?
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
Never been fervently linked with the Mariners
Prince Fielder was from the get go
Ah, I see.
It’s been hard to pin down a set of teams that are interested. Every time I feel like a certain team is definitely interested, it seems like that team comes out and says they’d rather have Soler.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
I agree it seems odd that the idea hasn't been floated more.
I don’t necessarily like the idea, but since the Mariners may or may not have money to spend still, and there doesn’t seem to be anyone else it could go to that the M’s might need. He hasn’t been liked to the M’s but I have been surprised it hasn’t at least come up more since there seems to be some sort of logic behind the idea.
Dave argues that Cespedes projects to be Casper Wells.
So why pay money for someone we already have.
Interesting.
He seems to be more down on him than most, then.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
I'm just surprised it hasn't been brought up more, not just here but among M's fans in general.
Considering how many people wished they had payed $210 million to Fielder it seems like more people would be at least talking about him.
I haven't really talked about it on here, but I have with some friends over the course of the offseason.
The guy’s interesting, to say the least. I’d rather put that money towards Soler, though.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Plus,
the Mariners are a franchise that scouts and signs guys from Latin America and are going to be one of the teams that could suffer from the new rules governing those signings. It makes sense to me that to try to use ‘future’ LA money for a big IFA now, but I can see how others would disagree.
"I’d love to walk in and hug everybody every day, but that’s not critical to us winning." - Jon Daniels
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 1, 2012 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
or Soler for that matter
Some see a glass half empty, some a glass half full. I see a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be. - George Carlin
Well Carlos Guillen changes everythign
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 11:51 AM PST reply actions
Yes, because Figgins' health and athleticism make him a useful (if vastly overpaid) utility player
I rather doubt Guillen makes the roster, but then I guess the same was said about Mike Sweeny and Adam Kennedy as well.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
Probably Figgins and Guillen make the roster
gives us lots of options in the infield
2B Ackley/Figgins/Guillen/Seager
SS Ryan/Seager/Guillen/Figgins
3B Seager/Figgins/Guillen
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
What does the bench look like in that scenario?
Figgins / Guillen / Kawasaki / Wells?
Does Jaso start in AAA?
Olivo/Casper/Guillen/Figgins
There’s no reason to carry Kawasaki- Guillen is a better player and Seager/Figgins can handle the backup middle infield duties with Guillen able to play there in a pinch
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
I hope they have a nice spring together and then he either goes to Tacoma or back to Japan
If he goes to Tacoma, I hope he gets called up as soon as there’s an injury if he’s performing, but I just don’t think Kawasaki belongs on a major league roster. I’d rather see Luis Rodriguez have that last bench spot, but since it’s the last bench spot and it’s Ichiro’s friend, may as well give it to him.
But with Guillen you’re not punting that last spot- he’s a better hitter than Figgins
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
Guillen > Figgins on offense, yes - when he's healthy
The critical question: Is Guillen coming to spring training in the best shape of his life? ;) Seriously, though, perhaps some decent competition will come from this.
I figure odds are pretty good Guillen injures himself before opening day and this conversation is moot
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
by Corco on Feb 1, 2012 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Guillen hasn't played SS since 2007
I don’t see him competing with Kawasaki/LRod.
At this point, Guillen and Figgins feel comparable offensively. It just depends who’s better defensively I guess.
He doesn't have to be able to play SS except in an absolute emergency though
Seager is definitely capable of playing it, and Figgins probably can too
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
I didn't realize Seager played 20% of his games SS last year
I still think Guillen’s and Figgins’ skills overlap too much to keep them both on the roster though. Z was actively looking for a backup SS this winter even with Seager, I don’t see him foregoing one in L-Rod/Kawasaki for Guillen.
I don't know. Guillen has been awful lately and isnt much of a fielder any more.
seems like he’d be a limitation on the roster.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
Opportunity cost?
Bench should be Olivo, Figgins, probably Seager, and a couple of outfielders to platoon with Wells/Carp and back up Gutierrez if need be. That’s assuming Montero can catch somewhat regularly. If he can’t it gets more complicated. But, Im not taking veteranness into account at all.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 1:28 PM PST up reply actions
Figgins and Seager won't both be on the bench unless Guillen is for some insane reason the starting third baseman and Figgins can play the outfield
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
Oh shit Im sorry. Right. Im a bit distracted.
Well then Figgins or Seager. But the other assumption there is a 6 man pen which is unlikely given how the rotation looks at the moment.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
Eh, opportunity cost is only if he makes the team
with a guy like Figgins around to play utility, I just can’t see Guillen making the team unless he can actually contribute
I think we agree?
I don’t think Guillen is a good enough hitter or fielder to supercede Figgins on the roster any more, and its hard to imagine both making the team.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
xx
That’s assuming Montero can catch somewhat regularly.
Do people know how often Jesus is expected to catch in Seattle? Or are people seeing him as more of a Napoli role (DH/1B/C)?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
We don't know, but suspect it'll be similar to Napoli.
Eric Wedge is too unpredictable
Was not sure if there had been any info about it yet or not
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
The way I've read GMZ and Wedge's comments is that he'll be eased into the full time catching role over the next few seasons
Provided he can ever be a full time catcher, of course.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm will at least be interesting to see how much he can handle
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
"He'll be given every opportunity to catch"
the GM’s words. Totally unclear what his role will be in the end. Two considerations are that Olivo is an awful defensive catcher and Jaso is not that much better, so the bar is low. The difference with Napoli is he’s well established as an excellent ML hitter and Moreland is fairly mediocre. Smoak blocks Montero at first.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
I assumed he would be more a C/DH (and the backup 1B if needed) as opposed to all 3…
M’s rolling with 3 catchers on the roster?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
Probably the best idea
unless you are sure that Montero can catch a ton
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
If last year is any indication the surplus of fringey catchers won't be a problem.
Just hope Gimenez is never asked to catch.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
I can respect that opinion in the abstract, but Figgins' health and athleticism haven't served him well in Seattle so far.
If Guillen can be healthy and capable enough to play 3b on occasion without flat missing or giving up on one groundball per game, like Figgins, and put up something close to his career line, I’d take it.
Aw, poor Kawasaki
So that’s who we were saving uniform #4 for
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
by Corco on Feb 1, 2012 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Oh good, he gets 8 back
Peguero switches to 4
We now have no available uniform numbers under 80
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
He's younger than Ichiro!
I liked Carlos okay his first time through (remember ARod telling us how awesome he’d be?), but it seems so long ago, that it really surprised me to see that he’s only 36.
underwhelmed but not disgruntled
Outside of a tantrum my roommate threw over the Pineda trade… the offseason has been a bit boring. I can see the dedication to the kids and honestly didn’t see much out there as serious upgrades. Catcher… sorta upped. 3B… not much to work with. Left Field… not much out there that didn’t look like casper, peguero, carp or other fill in couldn’t pull off. Not a bad offseason… just bored.
Not trying to be crass
But shouldn’t Greg Halman be listed under “lost”? That horrible event was also part of the organization’s offseason, unfortunately.
Probably, yeah.
I meant to put it under a different heading and then forgot
We've lost Pineda, Fister, and Bedard.
Have they been replaced with equal pitching and/or a substantial gain in offense? Let’s not kid ourselves.
The Fister trade was bad
Bedard was a free agent and we got two good prospects back for him in spite of the fact that he was a broken, aging starter.
We got Jesus Montero and Hector Noesi in the Pineda trade.
What?
by seattlebruin on Feb 1, 2012 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
My point is that our offseason, at best, has just kept us even.
Just my opinion.
For next season, yes
I think the team is in better shape looking beyond 2012, and given the state of the division and the kinds of teams the Rangers and Angels will be fielding next year it makes sense to load up for it. I think the Pineda trade was really about that. Chances are Pineda is a better player than Montero next year, but beyond that the risk associated with pitchers starts to balance out the risk associated with prospects. And by then our own near ready MiL pitchers wil be ready. Maybe not all, but surely some.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
You don't think it's too soon to judge the Fister trade?
Or, if you’re a fan of judging trades without the benefit of hindsight, you don’t think Martinez, Furbush, Wells, and Ruffin were worth Fister? There’s still a lot of promise in those names.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
The trade will still be a D at the time and whatever grade Fister turns into afterwards
seeing as how Fister still posted an above average tRA in 2010 and has four years of team control left, I can’t see it being any better than a C, and that’s if Wells and/or Furbush turn into something.
Basically I hated the trade – Martinez seemed too Triunfel-esque to me, and Fister seemed like he had improved part of his game every season. He was near dominant at times right before he was traded, and was actually dominant once he got to Detroit
That's crazy
You’re comparing prospects to a pitcher who is essentially a finished product and possibly just had a career season and saying ‘see – they’re not as good’. Every single one of the guys Fister was traded for has a good to decent chance to contribute at the major league level and has years of team control left.
At age 25, Doug Fister pitched 60 ML innings at a 5.88 tRA. At age 25, Charlie Furbush pitched 52 ML innings at a 5.27 tRA (and 22 as a reliever in Detroit which were a bit better). The performances were almost exactly on par compared to the league. Maybe you like Fister’s Minnesota style better, and it certainly remains to be seen whether Furbush can get the homers under control, but his stuff is pretty good and if he develops as Fister developed he alone would make the trade worthwhile.
Your criticism of Martinez is that he’s too much like Triunfel, which is funny because just a few years ago that would have been a glowing endorsement. Triunfel-like prospects don’t necessarily pan out, but when they do you get the good version Jose Lopez so I think its odd that you in particular would be unhappy about him.
I don’t feel like I need to defend Wells because he’s already a pretty good player. it remains to be seen whether he can hit for average but he is clearly a patient hitter with above average power who can play CF. He’s accumulated nearly 3 WAR already in a mere 350PAs. 2WAR if you’re uncomfortable including defense.
Ruffin I don’t want to discuss because he’s a reliever and the samples are tiny but BA puts him in our top 10 so I guess that means he’s good for a reliever? I dunno.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 6:54 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Those are all convenient arguments. Convenient here meaning lazy.
Comparing Furbush and Fister at the same age is dishonest since Fister added velocity and secondary stuff, essentially becoming a different pitcher. Since this isn’t something that happens with any sort of frequency, it’s not fair to just look at tRA and call that a push. It’s foolish to dismiss that Furbush has upside but saying that, at this point, he has any reasonable expectation of being as good as Fister? That’s irresponsible.
Per your Triunfel point, “a few years ago that would have been a glowing endorsement”. That depends who you ask and also just pretends that we’re all still living in the heyday of 2008. I don’t know about you, but I’ve learned a lot about baseball since 2008. In Triunfel’s early days when all we had was prospect bluster and wishcasting based on his early scouting, sure. Dating back to 2009, there have been numerous people with major concerns about his ability to be a successful MLB hitter based on his actual production. Thanks to the broken search function in SBN archives, I can’t go locate individual comments but I know Matthew, Graham, JY, (and me!) have been expressing these thoughts for at least two years. It’s one thing for a guy to have succeeded in college with a less disciplined approach. It’s another for the IFAs, especially when they haven’t made good on their scouting reports. Players of Martinez’s hitting profile are lottery tickets. There’s a reason lottery tickets cost a buck.
Wells is a nice complementary player. He looks like he’s something resembling average, which is neat. He’ll be 27 this year, so odds are he won’t be improving much. So, again, what you have is a ~average outfielder. Cool.
Non-elite relievers. Pile. Next.
I feel about this trade the way I feel about the Marcus Littlewood and Brad Miller picks, and I think it’s an issue holding the organization back somewhat. You shouldn’t use high picks to acquire mostly finished players or at least players with a limited upside and perhaps a higher floor. You can sign Craig Counsell whenever you’d like for 1.5 million a year. Or Adam Kennedy, or whoever the veteran almost average player free agents are every year. Why not use those resources to try to get the Josh Bells of the world (I know he went before Miller, I’m using him as an example.)?
The organization turned a very intriguing talent with lots of club control into a small archipelago of guys who are much more common a commodity. The team has an adequate quantity of roster filler. It needs concentrated value.
by abender20 on Feb 2, 2012 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I think the most important thing to note about Fister is that his results seemed logically sustainable based on the improvements he had made
it wasn’t as if the swinging strike rate and K rate, and earlier the reduced walks just jumped out of nowhere – he had made a conscious improvement in those areas, and every time he had made an improvement, he had been able to carry it forward as well.
There were lots of reasons to believe that Fister was going to continue to be successful, and less so with the pieces we got in return.
It’s not that I don’t like Wells and Furbush, and think they’re both contributors, or that I don’t really enjoy playing the prospect lottery – it’s that I don’t think they were worth a young, cheap, effective starting pitcher who had shown serious real strides over the past three seasons
Your point on Fister doesn't apply
Between his age 25 and 26 seasons he added 0.2mph on average to his heater, and it was in 2010 that he established himself as an effective ML starter. So, no, no major strides there. What I do remember is many LLers questioning the sustainability of Fister’s 2010 performance (I dont remember if you were in that camp though I suspect you were) based on his very low HR rate. Of course what he did was somehow throw harder and allow fewer dingers, so make of that what you will. I agree that expecting him to be as good as Fister is ridiculous, but expecting Fister to be as good as Fister was even more ridiculous. I think Furbush was written off immediately by many LLers and I think its unfair so that point was more to remind sb of how helpless Fister looked only two seasons ago.
On the Martinez Triunfel question, I think you’re alluding to Dave Cameron’s infatuation with him and the blogosphere’s assumption that he’s right as he often but not always is. However, it wasn’t only DC who was excited about him, as Triunfel was highly ranked by many national prospecting organizations including BA. Some lottery tickets cost a lot more than a buck.
Ruffin – how you can classify him as elite or non-elite at this point is a mystery to me but the way cheap effective bullpens are built is having guys like him in the system. He’s not an especially valuable piece but he’s hardly worthless.
Wells. Yes, nice player at a position of need, who can play center in case Gutierrez remains handicapped. Yes, 27 so you can’t expect much growth although there’s a lot to be said for having players in their absolute prime making league minimum.
I guess it comes down to what was a reasonable expectation for Fister’s services. There were a number of pitchers traded last winter who are much higher profile than Fister, and while the returns for them were better I don’t think they were overwhelmingly so. Look, I realy liked Fister. I still do. He’s super white and gangly and a great fielder and is far more successful than anyone expected. Also, Fister. I think his likability may be clouding people’s judgement of the trade. I wasn’t crazy about it myself but rating it a D or F seems overmuch.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
How is my point on Fister invalid?
It doesn’t matter if he made his jump in the same age year of comparison that Furbush just completed. His 2010 made him a nice but still questionable player. Between 2010 and 2011 is what we’re talking about.
I think its pretty clear I was talking about 09-10.
When I compared Furbush’s rookie season to Fister’s I was not implying that Furbush will be a 6 win pitcher in 2013. I was implying he has a good chance to develop into a 2-3 win pitcher.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
But the point is that Fister already got there
Furbush has a chance to develop, and it could be argued that he has a very solid chance to develop.
Fister already got there; in 2011 he was that good
by seattlebruin on Feb 2, 2012 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
My point was that the comparison you made wasn't one that made sense, seeing as how Fister went into a cocoon and came out a Cliff Lee.
The Doug Fister traded away was in no way the Doug Fister of 2009. We both know what seasons you were talking about. That’s exactly my point.
Well I'd hesitate to say he's Cliff Lee and Furbush wasn't the only player coming back in that trade
so Furbush doesn’t need to blossom like Fister did to make it an okay trade.
And once again, looking at the trades recently made for quality pitchers, I see a lot of seemingly underwhelming returns. Haren to Angels, Lee to Seattle, Latos to Cincy, Pineda to Yanks, the Oakland trades this winter… I’m probably forgetting some relevant trades. Either we’re overvaluing pitchers, or teams are overvaluing prospects.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
Those trades are underwhelming?
All are Sickels grades.
Haren returned Skaggs (A-), Corbin (B-, Borderline B), and a reliever.
Latos returned Alonso(B+), Grandal (B+), Boxberger (B-), and Edinson Volquez.
Lee to Seattle, well, LOLOLOLOLOL
Pineda to Yanks returned what would be hard to argue for anything other than nearly fair value.
Oakland traded Trevor Cahill, a 2-4 win pitcher for Jarrod Parker (A-), Cowgill (C+), and Ryan Cook (C+)
Gio Gonzalez to Nats for Cole (B+), Peacock (B, borderline B+), and Derek Norris (B), and Milone (B-).
I’ll be goddamned if those aren’t mostly excellent returns.
I'd have been thrilled as hell with any of those returns for Fister (duh).
Obviously he’s riskier than those guys since there’s less data available on him but if that’s the case, I’d much rather keep him and either trade him down the road or just use the good pitching. That’s the big takeaway from my perspective. Unless the team believes this is a Rookie of The Year situation and his magical skills will turn back into a pumpkin at midnight, I’d rather keep him than trade him for value below what his talent may merit.
I think the Cahill return is not oh so much better than what we got for Fister and Cahill is a better pitcher
(andl was traded with Craig Breslow). The big difference there is Sickels has Parker as A- while Furbush is at C+. But we also got Ruffin, whom Sickels had as a B- prospect. So, less given up, almost as much in return, but one trade is excellent but the other is dismal?
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Whoa there
Jarrod Parker is a legitimate frontline prospect. If we had traded Fister straight up for him I’d have been reasonably pleased.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 2, 2012 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know so much about him, just checked out his B-R page.
TJ surgery, K/BB around 2 in the high minors, 24 this year… is it all projection? Whence the hype? Serious question.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
9th overall pick in 2007
Killed it until mid 2009 until he went down with TJ, came back and was just as good. Very good fastball and change, decent curve. Control is the only question mark, but it’s not something that very many are concerned about, because a slight loss of command is expected while recovering from TJ.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 2, 2012 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
You know A- is a big deal, right?
Also, Cahill is not definitely a better pitcher than Fister.
Im not that familiar with Sickels' rating system, so no, i didnt.
And, looking at Cahill’s numbers again it seems you’re right. Actually, I think he’s a pretty good comp for Fister – more grounders and a more consistent track record but also way more walks.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
I seem to recall that Sickels focuses on upside more than some other prospect watchers
Which would explain in part the poor grades given to Wells and Furbush. I think the Fister trade was driven partly by a need have 25 major league quality players on the roster. The organization had so few players that could hack it in the majors that he was forced to choose polish over upside and so we have this group of lackluster but palatable dudes.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
Keep scrambling.
This is how he prefaces every single gradings post.
The list and grades are a blending of present performance and long-term potential.
He's not nearly as upside-friendly as some other prospect evaluators.
A/A- is usually reserved for “number one starters.”
I think the trade-off with Parker is only the TJ surgery. Otherwise, he’s a top 10 pitching prospect for some.
I actually think the A’s/D’Backs trade was rather fair. Now I’m questioning the Fister trade more seriously than I ever have before… though the most obvious difference between Fister and Cahill is how they were seen as prospects. “Name recognition” as a driving force behind the difference in the deals? But in that case, Jack never had to deal Fister. Seemed like a “sell high” move, thinking this is the best he’d ever get for Doug.
Of course, if the Tigers traded Doug now, they’d return significantly more than the Furbush deal. In retrospect, including Castellenos instead of Martinez seems rather fair.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 2, 2012 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
"The organization had so few players that could hack it in the majors"
They didn’t have enough players that could hack?
ba dum sss
Not fair to use that when evaluating Haren
Skaggs was not an A- prospect when the Angels traded him
by seattlebruin on Feb 2, 2012 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
Good catch.
Sickels before the start of last season:
7) Tyler Skaggs, LHP, Grade B- due to lack of experience, but supremely projectable
I seem to remember laughing my balls off at Arizona for making that trade
by Graham MacAree on Feb 2, 2012 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
I was just angry
No need to do the Angels any favors by being stupid. It’s like the rookie in your fantasy league who makes a lopsided trade with your rival.
I had such a hard time understanding
how the FO that made the Haren trade also traded for Kazmir and Wells.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
Your rebuttal regarding Triunfel doesn't get you anywhere. We have better ways of evaluating players now.
Dave’s support of Triunfel came from the information that was available at the time. We have much more data on Triunfel now and better viewpoints with which to use it. If you insist on somehow arguing that we should just anchor our opinions on prospects from the first information we obtain, great. When all you have is scouting reports, as is the case when IFAs come over, that’s what you have to go on. We have a reasonable quantity of data on Martinez in order to evaluate him and weight it against scouting data.
Thank you for agreeing that Wells is a nice player who is a fairly replaceable commodity and that Ruffin isn’t an especially valuable piece.
You see, we mostly agree!
I don't know where you got the idea that I want you to anchor your opinion on three year old data, although its certainly easier to argue against that..
sb commented that he hates Martinez ‘because he seemed too Triunfel-eque to me’ I reminded him that Triunfel was a good prospect before breaking his leg, and that players of that type can develop well even though Triunfel didn’t. Martinez was ranked very highly by BA in both the Tigers system last year and in ours this year, so the valuation of him as a prospect is not outdated.
But as I pointed out at the end of my last comment, I think our key disagreement is not in how good these players are but in what Fister should have brought back in trade.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
You said
which is funny because just a few years ago that would have been a glowing endorsement
Okay so in 2010, BA ranked Saunders as the 30th best prospect in baseball.
However, it wasn’t only DC who was excited about him, as Triunfel was highly ranked by many national prospecting organizations including BA.
Okay so in 2010, BA ranked Saunders as the 30th best prospect in baseball, but I repeat myself.
Martinez still has the problem of his power showing up mostly in scouting reports. His lack of discipline is real. He may grow into his power, sure. Discipline isn’t something many players develop. That’s a problem.
The origin of this discussion was the grade of the Fister trade. If we agree (but not really) mostly on the value of the players returned, then what?
It's not news that prospects can bust. BA's lists are full of players that never make it
And yeah, Martinez is no Brett Lawrie – we wouldn’t have gotten him if he were! But, he’s still a very young player performing well in the high minors at a position that’s an organizational weakness.
I think our key disagreement is not in how good these players are but in what Fister should have brought back in trade.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
I feel like there's a distinction here though.
Triunfel was valued, but a lot of his value was predicated on the idea that he was going to do something that he hadn’t done before, specifically hit for power. Guys with his level of bat skills have hit for power in the past, but in reality, Vlad Guerrero probably ruined both prospects and prospect evaluation for a while. The sad fact is that a guy that can cover the plate may become over-reliant on it because, so long as it’s working for him at the lower levels, why bother with anything else? So you end up with pitchers outsmarting said hitter and knowing that you don’t need strikes to get him out, he’ll just get himself out on his own.
Could we have known that a year or two after Triunfel signed? Probably not, because the pitchers at the low levels just aren’t that good. But we should have been increasingly skeptical of him after his supposed selling point didn’t manifest in any appreciable way. This specie of prospect is probably riskier than a lot of people believe.
by JY on Feb 2, 2012 11:11 PM PST up reply actions
I think we both both questioned Fister's sustainability
then 2011 happened.
by seattlebruin on Feb 2, 2012 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
Out of curiosity, what do you expect Fister to do in the next couple of years?
I thought he was a 1.5-2 win pitcher last winter and I think he’s a 2.5-3 win pitcher now.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
I guess that's at the core of our disagreement
I want to see Fister maintain his HR rate for another 200 innings and keep his velocity up before I am confident that he’s well above average.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
I actually have no idea why you liked Jose Lopez
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 2, 2012 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
I liked Jose Lopez because of his production!
4 WAR in 2008! After everyone wrote him off, but I believed!
I'll like the Fister trade a lot more if Wells reverts back to his pre-fastball-to-the-face form.
Watching that goofy homerun swing launch balls into orbit was awesome.
by Cascadian Man on Feb 1, 2012 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
All of Wells home runs looked like awful contact, but they all somehow cleared the fence.
It made no sense at all.
For what it's worth.
They all looked very wristy, and reminded me of how Indian cricketers often hit.
You can get a lotta leverage out of that but you have to have quick wrists and great hand eye co-ordination.
by Aussie Mariner on Feb 1, 2012 9:54 PM PST up reply actions
He said he reacted slowly to the pitch,
but I haven’t found anything that indicated it was anything more than a deer in the headlights thing.
After getting whacked in the nose by a baseball I would speculate that he suffered a minor concussion that caused the problem, and attempting to play through it didn’t help.
"Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp" B. Dylan
Fister and Bedard left last season and do not count here. Bedard was leaving either way, so he is irrelevant to this discussion.
Your question is basically will Furbush, Ruffin, Wells, Montero and Noesi surpass Fister and Pineda in production this year. It’s hard to make predictions about rookies, but I think its not unreasonable to think that they shake out pretty even.
by Bearskin Rugburn on Feb 1, 2012 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
Does anybody have a statistic on which teams sighned the most players to minor league deals for this spring?
I don’t keep up on minor league deals a much with other team, but it feels like we have brought in every “has been” or “never was” that ever exists on the planet. Sorry for being so negative, but I am underwhelmed. I think are big move was a very questionable trade. Again, sorry if I am being a Debby Downer.
by Let'sNotKidOurselves on Feb 1, 2012 10:45 PM PST reply actions
I think we had WAY more NRIs last year.
In fact I’d guess that we are probably around middle of the pack in terms of NRIs this year.
It's all tracked here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Major_League_Baseball_team_rosters
We’re on the high side, right in there with the Twins, Blue Jays and Marlins. The Giants have the most with 33.
I am too lazy to break down how many are team-controlled prospects, and how many are scrap heap NRIs.
by Eyebrows on Feb 1, 2012 11:31 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Through this I learned that Matt Bush is on the Rays' 40 man roster.
Which is amazing.
by Mariner John on Feb 1, 2012 11:49 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks Eyebrows, you don't need to do that and I don't care enought to count either
It just seems to be a lot of NRIs because everyday you wake up hoping for somebody to be coming on board and you get Oliver Perexz.
by Let'sNotKidOurselves on Feb 2, 2012 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Man, looking through NRI lists is one of the most amusing things
Why do the Phillies have Podsy and Juan Pierre both coming to camp? What could possibly be the point of that?
Determined, Jonesing Commentor
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
