The loss of Sherrill I think is negligible, as EOF and RRS can pick up the slack pretty well. Also, that rotation should considerably lighten the load on the bullpen, so it may actually become better than last year's, especially come August.

Thinking about it more, I realize I can convince myself that both are pretty attractive options. Its like this. You throw a party, and you get wasted very early (this always happens to me when I host). You know that later that night your smoking hot coworker you've been flirting with is gonna show. But that's later and this is now. And now your roommates older sister (who is meh) is all over your jock and talking dirty. Of course, it is preferable to keep your eyes on the prize and wait. However, if the choice were taken our of your hands and given to a nice but misguided bald man with an elongated cranium, and you suddenly find that you're already in bed with the sister, you're not giong to be pretty happy just the same. there's a georgian saying - you can't argue with a naked woman.

Well done, sir. Have yourself a beer.

40 - 20 (weighted runs compared to J. Affeldt) - 10 (BAT: Jones to Wlad) - 12.5 (GLOVE: Jones to Wlad)

=

-2.5 runs

Jones will probably be a great player, but Bedard will help the Mariners more right now AND in the next couple of years, I think.

If there's a trigger, the front office should pull it now.

Im baffled at how clueless people are.

I could be ok letting Jones go for Bedard if he were guaranteed to stay. I see the argument 'how often do the Ms get a frontline pitcher like this'?. They conveniently forget Bedard is virtually a lock to leave in two years...how often do we retain frontline pitchers?.

Bedard is an awesome pitcher. Im still not putting him as high (Santana/Peavy high) as everyone else until he has another awesome year. Just me being stingy.

But even the great Bedard will see double after double next year wiith our outfield defense. It felt like we gave up 3-5 doubles a game.

of course i think the rumored packages are terrible. obviously, you cant know for sure what youve got with prospects, especially one as young as triunfel, but as we've said so many times on this board, you have at least have a decent educated guess always.

back to the subject of my comment, if erik bedard ends up in a mariner uniform, regardless of the cost, i will be damn excited to watch him on the hill for us. it goes against all rhyme or reason, but damn do i want to watch a guy like erik bedard pitch for the Ms

I am not favoring the trade at all but this is the arguement and it has some credibility kinda like trading Soriano for Ramirez made some sense based on a RP for a SP who was a groundball pitcher.  The basic theory of trading and OF and RP for a #1 SP has credibility but I just don't think it helps us in this case.

Backup SP
Feierabend
Rohrbaugh
HoRam
Dickey
Baek

I'd say we are in pretty good shape.

While much of Jeff's argument makes sense, the reality is that the Ms ALREADY made the decision that NOW is the time to try and win.  They committed to that course the day they inked the Ichiro contract.  If you want to rebuild for 3-years-from-now, then you TRADE Ichiro for specs, you don't sign him long-term, to become your pricey Bagwell or Bonds that PREVENTS you from having the cash to fill that last critical spot or two when the specs do arrive.

=

As for the 5-minute analysis of where the Ms stand:

2007 Ms finished with a 104 OPS+, (that's above average, btw).  Guillen posted a 116 OPS+, but his career average is only 101.  Moreover, the EASIEST position in baseball to find adequate offensive production is corner OF.  Wlad does not HAVE to be the replacement for Guillen.  Lofton and Trot Nixon are on the market, and both have career OPS figures significantly higher than Guillen's.  And with a minor league career OPS of .862, a 50 point dip moving to the bigs STILL returns basically the same offense as 2007, (hoping for a better season from Sexson).

==

The contention that Bedard would be a "30-40" run gain for the club, however, is the arena where I blink.

In 2007, HoRam surrendered 78-ER (86 total) in 98 innings.  Currently, he is still positioned to be the #5 starter, and HE is the production Bedard is likely to replace.

Bedard allowed 64-ER (66 total) in 182 IPs.  You normalize both to 200 innings, and you're looking at closer to an 80-run swing in the Ms favor.

Of course, many people are decrying 2007 as a career year for Bedard, (while accepting Jones' AAA 2007 as gospel truth of impending HoF status).  Well, let's look at Bedard in 2006, compared to HoRam * 2:

Bedard 2006 - 196-IP - 82-ER (92 total)
Horam 2007*2 - 196-IP - 156-ER (172 total)

The delta between the two in this comparison is exactly 80 total runs.  

Then, of course, come the potential positive impact on a less-stressed bullpen.  

====

But, Weaver is also replaced by Silva.

Weaver (2007): 101-ER in 146-IP

Weaver+feierbend: 145-ER in 195-IP
Silva (2007) : 94-ER in 202-IP

====

So, the math can paint a picture of the Silva/Bedard upgrade to the rotation being "potentially", a 130-run gain, when compared against 2007.  

Mind you, there are arguments to be made that Silva 'may' not be as significant an upgrade as shown above.  But, I don't think it at all unreasonable to at least START the analysis by comparing the most recent production of the players being discussed.

The reality is that - in 2007, if Bedard had thrown his Baltimore innings for the Ms, while the Horam (and Baek) innings hadn't existed, it is QUITE possible that the Ms would have been in the playoffs.  

The only real question is what kind of hit offensively and defensively the club will take in regards to replacing Guillen.  In truth, corner OF slots are historically the easiest position on the field to replace.  Cleveland showed that when AFTER Nixon and Dellucci both stumbled badly, they went and snagged Lofton.

My comparison is based on replacing the ACTUAL player, playing in the environment in question.

HoRam with the Ms defense behind him.  He IS currently the Ms #5 starter.  We have already seen what performance he did have in 2007.  And if we are attempting to assess how much the Ms are going to improve, using numbers from 'theorhetical' doesn't seem to get us closer to the truth - but further from it.

Now, my 80 run figure did use Horacio's 2007 numbers, (doubled - which matches innings with Bedard's 2006 numbers).  This doesn't take an advanced degree in math to see.

92-runs allowed by Bedard.
172-runs allowed by HoRam.

That's an 80-run gain, based NOT on Bedard's career 2007, but his 'just pretty good' 2006.

Is defense a concern?  Sure.  In 2006, Baltimore had the 26th ranked DER in baseball.  In 2007, Seattle stood at 27th.  So, this comparison does NOT reward Bedard for the superior Baltimore defense of 2007.  (It does however, penalize him for the extra 50 Ks he managed in 2007).

Additionally, these numbers are NOT park-adjusted, which means HoRam's 7 runs per 9 and Feirabend's 8 per 9 were ASSISTED by the Seattle park.

===

Okay, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the Ms "could" get this theorhetical replacement player.  I would agree with an assessment that said player would likely improve Seattle by 40 runs over last season in runs allowed.  Bedard, however, gets them another 40 runs above THAT.

So, compared to 2007, a "conservative" estimate, (no credit for 2007 career year - no assist by adjusting for park), Bedard is an 80-run gain in run prevention from the ACTUAL runs allowed by Seattle in 2007.

The reason that Bedard is so inherently valuable is because he isn't replacing a #1 starter (or even a #5).  He's replacing a #7 starter, because that's what the Ms had - (and have).

Answer: The replacement level player DOES NOT EXIST.  He is a theorhetical mathematical projection.

The Ms are attempting to replace ~350 innings of production in Weaver/HoRam/Baek/Fear.  THAT production was not remotely close to the 6/9 replacement level production that Jeff says he used.

I'm okay with that.  If he's projecting replacement level production for those 350 innings, then he's STARTING his analysis assuming 234 runs allowed in those innings, when the actual 2007 runs allowed were 280.  That means, BEFORE the trade, he's projecting a 47 run improvement for the Ms in runs allowed.

HIS assessment is that Bedard would contribute an ADDITIONAL bonus of 30-40 runs prevented.  I'm not disagreeing with that assessment, (now that I understand it was based on comparison to replacement level).  

After he clarified the assumption of 2008 replacement level production, then I realized his projection is actually right on the money with mine.

Replacing the #5 slot production with replacement level production is worth 30-40 runs.  Swapping Bedard for that is another 40-50 runs.  

Does this address the loss of Sherrill or Jones or potential impact on defense?  No.  But, my projection was based on Bedard's 2006 numbers, and I also am not factoring in the likely park effect benefits in moving from Camden to Safeco.

In the end, the Ms allowed 813 runs in 2007.  That is not in dispute.  The attempt to assess where they stand (and whether they have a playoff shot in 2008) really needs to (at some point), figure out the 2008 projected runs allowed.

I made the error of thinking that Jeff was suggesting Bedard would only reduce Seattle's runs allowed from 813 to around 770.  Once he clarified his starting point for me, it would appear to me that his projection would have Seattle closer to 730.  

The loss of Sherrill could hurt that.  Yes.  But, HoRam moving to the pen and becoming the lefty specialist (and he has a MUCH better split versus lefties), softens that blow.  Then again, Seattle has shown an incredible knack for developing a bullpen, so I personally don't have a lot of concern in that arena.