Bedard and M's deal close

hmm

why get clement when they have wieters?
i guess they could use clement as a 1b???

by bk11 on Jan 8, 2008 1:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Or Wieters

by jfish26101 on Jan 8, 2008 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wieters is 6'5, but has a power arm, so I think for now they would use him behind the plate. That is a scary sized catcher though. Clement being 6'1, but less of a defensive cathcer, will probably play first.

by ChrisRef19 on Jan 8, 2008 7:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do it

Wieters shouldn't stop them from getting a very good player, even if that player is a catcher. Wieters will likely take a year to a year and a half to get to the majors. Now Hernandez is a different story. Hopefully you can trade him for something useful and young. If not you have Clement at 1B/DH ande catching 2-3 times a week. Than when Wieters is ready, hopefully you have a situation like the Braves did with Salty and McCann.

by odogs101 on Jan 8, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If this is true...

I don't think the Mariners are going to let tony Butler get in the way of making this deal. I'd hate to see Adam go man. JUST the kind of guy you don't want to deal. That Bill Bavasi, always the shrew negotiator eh? Always makes a move as though the M's are just one piece away from greatness, which they aren't. Might squeek into the playoffs though, who knows. I'll cheer 'em on but, who plays RF again now? Balentien?

by casejud on Jan 8, 2008 2:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

As an O's fan

If the deal is Jones, Clement, Triunfel, I'd poop my pants in happiness.

Clement would probably be flipped for a somewhat equal prospect, especially given MacPhail's insistence on pitching.

The supposed deal that's been on the table is Jones, Clement and Chen, with the O's insisting on Morrow.

by Lt Melmo on Jan 8, 2008 2:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

You should

Even if it's Jones, Clement and Tillman or Butler. That's still a very impressive haul for admittedly a stud starting pitcher.

by guru4u on Jan 8, 2008 8:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll be disappointed if the M's lose Jones

or Triunfel. But both?? Good lord, there would be no God. I swear to Lucifer, I'm punching a baby.

by elrey34 on Jan 8, 2008 2:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Punch Bill Bavasi instead

Won't someone think of the children?

by AucklandGM on Jan 8, 2008 6:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As an M's fan

It makes me sad.

The team does need an upgrade in the rotation, badly, but it's not as though we're one piece away here and Bedard will push us over. The lineup still has serious questions, none of which have yet been addressed.

By going through with that trade, we may get a rotation fix for a couple of years (I don't personally think Bedard will want to re-sign), but we'd be giving up two or more of the few position players we've managed to develop in recent years, which hurts our roster flexibility and our production with it in the long-term.

They're acting like we're going to make a run and enter a period of sustained competitiveness, but I think a trade like this seriously damages the mere possibility of sitting atop the standings a few years in a row.

"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett http://mvn.com/milb-mariners/

by JY on Jan 8, 2008 3:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Terrible

if this go down we can safely say that.

the Angels might as well start selling the post season tickets for 2010.
the O's quickly turned a very ugly situation into a very bright one.

by RollingWave on Jan 8, 2008 4:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

That's a hell of a trade when the Mariners can trade the Jets' QB rather than their current 3B prospect.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 8, 2008 7:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

lol

i was thinking the exact same thing. no wonder the O's want a different guy as the 3rd player in the deal. :)

by jpahk on Jan 8, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Trade

Assuming Bedard is healthy...

If that's the deal, I like it for the M's. Bedard was pretty much the best pitcher in baseball last year, and they are getting him without giving up a single pitcher (like Morrow). I really like Jones a lot, but if the M's have a possibility of putting Bedard with Felix by dealing Jones, they've got to do it. That's one hell of a 1-2 punch.

I guess part of the reason I like it more than some others here is that I'm not a big Clement guy. If he's a 1b/dh (and I tend to think that he is), his value is significantly compromised. I like his offensive potential, but he'll need to hit a lot to be an above average player at that position.

by jc3 on Jan 8, 2008 8:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

I definitely agree with this.

I like Adam Jones but the other two guys don't do too much for me. If they can trade a top 10 prospect plus two 40-100 prospects for one of the best pitchers in baseball, you gotta do it...

by Dfarth on Jan 8, 2008 9:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bedard

Does anyone know his contract status? Cot's has him at 4.17 years in service time (updated through 2007?), and no 2008 contract details.

At best, I think this means he's got 2 club-controlled years left (although he'll probably make approx. $6-$8M/year for them).

I wouldn't trade the farm for 2 years of Bedard, despite how good he is. He's also a guy who's had his share of serious injuries.

by Yakker on Jan 8, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Injuries

His only serious injury was in the minors when he required Tommy John surgery. His other two injuries (hamstring in 05 and oblique in 07) weren't very serious, and more importantly, non-arm related.

by Harold Baines on Jan 8, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair Enough

Although, obliques can be serious and linger for awhile, creating a cascade. Just ask Rich Harden.

by Yakker on Jan 8, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

contract

He's under club control for the next 2 years via arbitration.

by lenred on Jan 8, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

That's what I thought.

He made $3.4M last year, and with the year he had, I bet he'll end up around $6M for 08 and $8M or more for 09.

Cheap for a guy of his quality, but you better really win something in those two years if you're trading away Jones, Clement, and ??.

by Yakker on Jan 8, 2008 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jones+Tui+Clement may be fair,

however, I am certainly not for it. People talk about how well Bedard will do pitching at the Safe. Well, a ton of his home field advantage is damaged when you have terrible defense in the outfield. As awesome as Ichiro is, he doesn't have enough range to cover for Ibanez AND Balentien -- both mediocre at best to extremely poor. That big, spacious outfield doesn't help Bedard one bit if the outfielders watch every other fly ball drop. And how about the rest of the rotation, especially considering that 3/5ths of it are 5-slot starters?

I'm sure many Mariners fans will agree with me on this, as horrifying as many of you will think, but I wouldn't trade Adam Jones for Bedard straight up. Dave Cameron did a study on how much of a positive impact replacing Jones with Ibanez/Guillen would have on the team (read #1), and found that as far as runs created/prevented -- because of how terribly shitty either one of their defense was -- that the club would essentially benefit as much as if they were to land Johan Santana.

Thus, Bedard for Jones is not much of a step forward in 2008. Much more lateral than one would think. I'm not saying Jones is going to be a superstar like Justin Upton, and to most teams trading Bedard for Jones alone is a no-brainer. But most of Jones' value to the Mariners immediately is him replacing a very poor corner outfielder with a center fielder by trade.

by elrey34 on Jan 8, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

positive impact...

Yep, same article said, "platoon Broussard, Ibanez, Guillen, Sexson, and Vidro. [... Vidro] essentially being limited to DH against lefties." This was advice for the 2nd half of the season. A period over which Vidro hit .348/.419/.449.

I bring that up because too much can be made of small sample sizes sometimes. Mr. Cameron acknowledges this by suggesting some regression of the defensive stats he cites, but I think the assumption that a young player is going to set the world on fire is a trap easily fallen into, and certainly small samples of defensive stats can be very misleading.

I don't know what Ibanez's problems were in 2007. BP has him finishing at -19 fielding runs (compared to "average"), so his 2nd half wasn't nearly as bad as the -10 that the article presumed as a "regressed" (conservative) estimate [he was at -15 at the time of the article]. Ibanez had been around average in the past... strange fall-off last year.

Are the M's really going to move Ibanez to RF and play Jones in LF? The fact that LF was much harder to play was another key piece of the article. Or is the assumption maybe that Vidro goes back to the DL, er... I mean ... to playing 2b, and Balentien plays RF, with Ibanez DH-ing, and Jones in the (much more difficult) LF position?

As an aside, I think it's a terrible injustice to call Washburn a 5-slot starter. That's not right. It's probably hyperbole when directed at Silva, too (102 career ERA+), but certainly for Washburn.

That was a lot of stuff about background, but I sort of agree with you... I love Adam Jones as a prospect, and wish he was in the book so that I could read John's reasoning for initially calling him a "B+". I think Jones for Bedard would probably be lopsided for the M's, but not by enough to throw in another blue-chip player like Clement. And adding yet another in addition is getting ridiculous. I think I'd like the trade more if I really believed Bedard'08 was going to be like Bedard'07, but I am skeptical.

by BobbyMac on Jan 9, 2008 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

further

any study stating Jones / Santana swap would have been equal (even for last year) is 100% totally whacked.

I'm guessing 65 AB last year isn't enough to state he'd have enough value as the perennial Cy Young. Using this as an argument is why we need an ignore button.

by pedrophile on Jan 9, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, good.

Because nobody is claiming that.

by elrey34 on Jan 9, 2008 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

care to explain the difference?

Dave Cameron did a study on how much of a positive impact replacing Jones with Ibanez/Guillen would have on the team (read #1), and found that as far as runs created/prevented -- because of how terribly shitty either one of their defense was -- that the club would essentially benefit as much as if they were to land Johan Santana.

by pedrophile on Jan 9, 2008 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not complicated

The article explains it clearly. The defensive runs saved by playing Jones in LF over Ibanez projected to be about the same as replacing Miguel Batista (or Jarrod Washburn) with Johan Santana. It's not stating that the value of Santana and Jones are equivalent.

by patsfan on Jan 9, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes it is

if Ibanez is league average for his position (which I think is about right) and Batista is league average - then it's saying Jones & Santana are equal.

I think so often these articles overvalue defence like crazy.

Ask any GM in baseball what they'd rather have and every single one of them would rather Ibanez in LF and Santana pitching. Every one.

It sounds flat out crazy to me.

by pedrophile on Jan 9, 2008 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ibanez league average? Well, you're wrong.

Ibanez was the worst outfielder not named Manny Ramirez last season and he doesn't have a giant wall a stone's throw away from home plate to play off of. The Safe's LF is so spacious that it's effectively halfway to being a defensive premium position to someone who plays 81 games there. So, you a bottom-scraping defender playing a defensive premium position half the time being upgraded to a center fielder by trade that's worth saving 15 runs over half a season. That's monumental.

It sounds so crazy because Ibanez is bad enough to give all of his offensive contributions in 2007 away with the glove. It's like replacing Derek Jeter with Adam Everett. Ibanez is that bad.

by elrey34 on Jan 9, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Should be "you HAVE."

by elrey34 on Jan 9, 2008 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

gotta say -- one of the worst things sabermetricians came up with was "exact" numbers on defense, because now people think they can treat them as "exact" enough to do calculations with. you can't. defensive stats still suck, and you're doing more harm than good when you try to appropriate them into offensive and pitching stats.

also, i share your sentiment that all the defensive stats lately massively numerically overrate defensive contributions. and, no, i'm not saying that from a fantasy perspective, though i'm sure i'll be attacked for that.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 9, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you see Cameron saying

About 15 runs, and not 15 runs distinctively? Dave Cameron arrives on his approximations of defensive runs created by looking at the best defensive sabermetrics (UZR, PMR, etc.) and cutting off what's above the probable maximum and what's below the probable minimum. Leaving you with a -20<x<-10 figure, as an example.

by elrey34 on Jan 10, 2008 1:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i understand that

but

1) i don't think anybody's all that good at approximating these things. yes -- EVEN approximating.

and

2) people too often don't use these as approximations. see, comparison to Johan above, or comparison of how much of Braun's offensive value was "subtracted," etc.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

at least that I can respect. This is definitely a time where we can say to each his own.

by elrey34 on Jan 10, 2008 2:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK...

i guess i have a few questions for you. even though i'm so skeptical i doubt i'll change my mind, i'd be interested in hearing your answers to these. who knows -- maybe it'll shift my opinion a little.

doesn't it bother you that your hypothetical range of uncertainty of runs (10-20, which is a 10-run range) is almost as large as the supposed difference in value between Miguel Batista and Johan Santana? if the RANGE is that large, is the stat telling you anything? or is your calculation of Johan's value really accurate?
i'm not really sure how you measure a "run" defensively by those stats, so you'll have to explain to me. i assume it's the expected number of extra runs allowed by playing one player in the outfielder versus a replacement player? if so, i can potentially see why it might be appropriate to compare the two types of "runs." but, otherwise, it might run into some problems.

also, i'm not sure how this would effect things, but it seems like you would want to use a park-adjusted, defensive-independent stat to measure Batista and Johan's respective values. Cameron appears to use unadjusted ERA.

OK, so this is really fuzzy, and i know that runs should equal wins, but bear with me on this one, because i feel like, when you calculate "runs allowed defensively," it's harder to have a bullshit meter to check if your stat is working or not, since no one really has an intuition for how many more runs a bad defensive player will cede. so, the question is, how many more wins is Johan worth to the M's than Batista? i know there are sabermetric answers to this one (take your pick of metrics). i have trouble believing that that many ballgames would have gone the other way because of a random distribution of misplays and bad range by Ibanez -- even accounting for the extra outs this allows for. you're talking about Johan starting 33 games.
finally, one huge thing it seems like Cameron didn't account for -- Johan is worth 30-40 more innings a year of that low ERA than Batista. Cameron cheated and simply subtracted the runs from Batista's innings, then compared ERAs. of course, there's no other good way to do it, but it does mean that their VALUES are quite disparate.

anyway, let me know your thoughts to any of these. i'll try to keep an open mind. i swear. to me, though, defensive stats do more harm than good.

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 10, 2008 3:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take a quick crack at this

It definitely bothers me. But I think it's still a useful exercise and is a huge improvement over not having any idea about how to quantify defense contributions. It may or may not be 100% accurate (most likely not), but it'll be pretty close if you're conservative about it, and that's really all you can ask for when it comes to projecting (which is what this was, not a statement).
My understanding is that most of the systems compare you to an average player. So UZR had Ibanez making 30 fewer plays compared to an average leftfielder. Turning that into runs can be done several ways. For instance, you can look at a run expectancy table and compare the value of having a runner on first with 0 outs versus the value of having no runners on with 1 out. In general, it's taken that a play made/not made by a defender is worth ~0.8 runs. So UZR would say that Ibanez cost the Mariners about 24 runs last season. Some of the specifics here might be slightly off but the overall idea is correct, I think.

I don't think Cameron was using unadjusted ERA to measure values, he was using it to show a simple way to interpret the type of pitching upgrade 15 runs over 90 innings is.

If you'd watched every M's game last season, you'd believe. It certainly opened my eyes to how much of an impact defense has, which I never seriously considered before. Yes, you're talking about Santana starting 1/5th of the games, but you're also talking about Ibanez playing almost every inning of the entire season. Runs are runs.
Again, I don't think Cameron is actually doing a serious value comparison of Batista and Santana, he's just using them to say that if they switched for 90 innings, the Mariners would save about 15 runs. The same 15 runs that Jones would project to save over Ibanez in half a season's worth of games.

by patsfan on Jan 10, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not sure where you found this

but - In general, it's taken that a play made/not made by a defender is worth ~0.8 runs.

that is terribly wrong. It's so far off.

First of all it would mean that if a player had 200 hits they would project to score 160 runs. 160 runs on top of all the runs scored off walks.

Oh, and it doesn't count for all the runs scored off HR's. And HR's account for a huge percentile of runs scored.

I think around .25 would be more accurate. That would turn 30 plays into 7.5 runs. Which is about 2 games or so.

By the way - if Ibanez is so bad they could always put Balentien at LF.

I think the article tried to make a point - but used such preposterous examples it lost any validity. It's like saying the next Maddux or next Pedro.

by pedrophile on Jan 10, 2008 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

your analysis is rather leaky. a play being made/not made being worth 0.8 runs on average is actually more equivalent to saying that a player with 200 hits will add 160 team runs scored over a guy who makes 200 outs. and that seems plausible to me. it even seems a little low, but i guess we're talking about 200 non-HR hits.

the reason that HRs score so many runs is that sometimes guys are on base when they happen. you think defense doesn't have anything to do with that?

by jpahk on Jan 11, 2008 12:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what?

I think the MLB average is around 10 hits / 9. Add a couple walks. That is 12 baserunners / 9. And an ERA of 4.5.

That is 37.5% ratio of baserunners who score.

Excluding the HR factor of course.

{the reason that HRs score so many runs is that sometimes guys are on base when they happen. you think defense doesn't have anything to do with that?}

D rarely has anything to do with HR's. But you are implying a HR after a defensive blunder. It happens but I'd like to see a stat before believing it's anything but rare.

IMO - your numbers are insane. Totally off the chart.

by pedrophile on Jan 11, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Read this

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_saving_a_play_is_worth_08_runs/

by patsfan on Jan 11, 2008 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

tried to read this but I'm drunk right now. maybe later. or not ...

by pedrophile on Jan 12, 2008 2:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

defense

is more than just avoiding blunders. it's about making outs, preventing hits, and generally keeping guys off base. i'm not saying that most of the runs scored on HRs could have been prevented by better defense, but certainly some of them could.

so what if only 35-40% of baserunners score? you're completely forgetting about the value of the out that was not recorded. i would agree that if the runner reached base but the defense somehow still got an out, then the value of the missed play would only be about 0.3 or 0.4 runs. but the rules of baseball unfortunately prevent that--either the offense gets an extra baserunner, or the defense gets an out. there's no in-between.

i guess if your opinion is that my numbers are totally off the chart, i can't argue with that. but everybody else in the world seems to agree with me, so at least i have that going for me.

by jpahk on Jan 11, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

actually

make that 0.5 runs, not 0.3 or 0.4... i was forgetting about the fact that the missed play also (usually) allows for advancement of runners already on.

by jpahk on Jan 11, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You have an interesting philosophy.

I don't mean this in a snipey way but I'd love to see the numbers behind it, just because there's a lot of people against you on it. As you said, the defensive metrics still have a ways to go (this is undeniable) so it's still possible that everybody is off track.

And they won't put Balentien in the Majors because he's being deemed not ready. I don't know the specifics, but the organization concluded to this, scouts from other teams think this, and so do analysts. I do know that his defense, while better than Ibanez, still needs a lot of work -- although he's projected to be an average defender, or a tick better.

You can't call the examples used preposterous unless you're saying the same of Tom Tango, Bill James and Mitchell Litchman and the like.

by elrey34 on Jan 11, 2008 3:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to pile on to what elrey already responded

But Ibanez is unbelievably bad. I watched every Mariners game last season and it was just painful to watch him out there. Sometimes it's tough to tell whether or not a ball should have been caught, but there were numerous occasions with him last year where it was plainly evident that almost any other outfielder would have made a play that he didn't, and you could see it actively costing the team runs.

And this isn't just observer's bias, this is backed up by the numbers. I'm with you guys 100% on the unreliability of defensive statistics, but when every single one tells you that a player is awful, I tend to put some stock in it. UZR had Ibanez at -30. Dewan's Plus/Minus had him at -23. The Hardball Times' RZR, David Pinto's PMR, and Dan Fox's SFR all had him as either the 3rd or 4th worst LF in baseball.

I'm sure you're correct about the GM thing but that doesn't necessarily mean the idea is incorrect (and under this scenario we are assuming that Ibanez and Jones hit exactly the same and that Batista and Santana pitch exactly the same number of innings). Under these specific circumstances, the logic behind the article was accurate, in my mind.

by patsfan on Jan 10, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Response:

This was advice for the 2nd half of the season. A period over which Vidro hit .348/.419/.449.

And your point is what? That you should stick with the lesser talent because it's possible for him to get lucky, whilst implying that the greater talent can't? Vidro hitting like that was almost solely due to an unmaintainable LD% and BABIP. Just because you made a bad choice that turned out to look wise in retrospect doesn't mean your choice was justifiable.

I think the assumption that a young player is going to set the world on fire is a trap easily fallen into, and certainly small samples of defensive stats can be very misleading.

Cameron wasn't implying that Jones would set the world on fire. He brought that up because it was a possibility, albeit a very small one that happens rarely. I don't need to point out Ryan Braun.

Ibanez was slightly hampered by a hamstring pull, but that doesn't excuse him for being the worst defensive player this year I've ever had the displeasure of following. Don't expect a comeback defensively either. It's not very strange for a fielder in his mid 30s to severely decline. Defense is among the first skills to deteriorate with age. But as for what the plan is right now, Jones will be in right with Ibanez staying in left. Balentien as of now is not in the 2008 plan because he's being deemed not ready; I just threw him in my hypothetical scenario because there's no one else in the organization. Also, I don't much care what BP thinks about defense; their system is the worst.

As for your aside, Washburn doesn't get ground balls, doesn't strike batters out, and his only real value to baseball is his ability to stay in the strikezone. Sounds like a #5 to me.

by elrey34 on Jan 9, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

points

My point is that Vidro is a career .302/.365/.451 hitter, and was just 32 years old. The fact that people wrote him off after a couple injury-ridden years in Washington was silly. EXPECTING Jones to out-hit him is preposterous. Not that it CAN'T happen (since obviously it CAN), but the expectation has to be much lower. Look at the first half-season from Gordon or Kouzmanoff, for example, since you keep citing Braun. If a guy is "blocked" by Craig Counsell or somesuch, it makes a lot of sense to give him the job and let him run with it. Interesting that you bring up Vidro's LD% and BABIP, since they clearly showed that his 2005/2006 seasons were "unlucky" (over 22% LD%, BABIP around .300).
Well, Ibanez was at -15 runs using the fielding stats that Dave Cameron cited. What did he end up with at the end of the year? I don't disagree with your assessments of his future. I do notice that you didn't reply with the season-ending run impact for Ibanez, which I suspect wasn't as bad as the -25 which was "regressed to" by Cameron.
re: "As for your aside, Washburn doesn't get ground balls, doesn't strike batters out, and his only real value to baseball is his ability to stay in the strikezone. Sounds like a #5 to me." - Last time I checked, a pitcher's only real value to any team was the ability to prevent runs. That you limit the subset of guys you consider worthy of your first four rotation spots to groundball/K pitchers (which are leading indicators of future success, not run prevention skills in and of themselves - run a correllation between runs allowed and K's [strong correllation here, but no different than other types of outs] or GB's if you don't believe me), just shows that you have a strong preference for one type of pitcher to me. Washburn has a long history of preventing runs, and that's the bottom line.

by BobbyMac on Jan 9, 2008 2:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

1) People wrote of Vidro because

A) His power diminished, as he showed.
B) His range diminished enough to be taken off the field.
C) A player with no power and no defensive contribution is a player who is relegated to the bench and is gone from baseball within the next couple years. Unless you have a "proven" track record and are employed by the Seattle Mariners.

UZR has Ibanez's 2007 at -30 [only ahead of Manny], and RZR has him at .813 [ahead of only Manny and Burrell]. IMO, he's worse than Burrell, and certainly more of a defensive detriment to his team than either of the two because of their home parks.
History Shmistory. What I care about is what ability a player has. Not what his past ability led him to achieve. If Pitcher A can do what Pitcher B can for a much lower price, I take Pitcher A any day of the week. Well guess what? There are TONS of Pitcher As out there to Pitcher B Jarrod Washburn. So if I put Pitcher A on the mound in place for Pitcher B, I expect as much as I would out of Pitcher B.

So, if I'm Bill Bavasi and you would like to trade me a warm body making league minimum for Jarrod Washburn and his contract, I'm on the phone with you this instant. Of course, I'm not Bavasi, as much as I'd like someone in charge of the Mariners who had some understanding of basic 21st century baseball management.

So yes, to answer your question, I do have a strong bias for pitchers who strike out and ground out batters because they are just plain better than flyball pitchers.

by elrey34 on Jan 10, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrote ofF***

I really should preview my posts more.

by elrey34 on Jan 10, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If that happens

I will be dancing. And not in the figurative sense.
The Mariners are not 'there' yet. If they can work out some sort of extension with Bedard beforehand, It's merely a bad deal. Otherwise, I thank Bill Bavasi for the organizational suicide.

by Rangers Farmhand on Jan 8, 2008 8:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

EXACTLY.

This will not push the Mariners over the top, so it's just not worth it. With Bedard and without Adam Jones, this team is just plain not as good as the Angels. Not by a long shot.

by elrey34 on Jan 8, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clement

definetly has the power to be an above average 1B, the main question is does he have the contact?

i can see him being a .275-.280 30-40 homer 1B as far as potential goes.

by High Heater on Jan 8, 2008 9:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

yep

that's basically a Paul Konerko level hitter- hopefully with better defense. I think most teams, especially the Orioles, would take that. And Tex is not going to be easy for the Birds to sign in 09.

by yoshimi on Jan 8, 2008 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i believe

konerko himself started as a catcher too, correct me if i'm wrong?

by High Heater on Jan 8, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

correct

he then moved from c to 3b before ending up at 1b i believe.

ok! ok! Blue Jays! Blue Jays! Lets! Play! Ball!

by BJ Birdie on Jan 8, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clement

If the O's wouldn't use him at Catcher they should turn around and deal him to a team that would. There is no reason to devalue an asset unnecessarily.

by McLovin on Jan 8, 2008 10:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Most around the organization,

along with most scouts, say Clement's potential with the bat is in the Jorge Posada neighborhood. Which is awesome if he stays at catcher (which he won't). But at first base? Nah...

by elrey34 on Jan 8, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As a disgruntled Orioles fan

These ideas re-excite my interest in the O's. The idea of acquiring Jones has me salivating, especially a day or two after The Sun reported that we might be resigning Patterson to multi-year deal. If this deal is Tillman instead of Tuiasosapo I like it even better. I could envision Clement being moved to 1B (although he loses some value there) or being flipped.

Rumors abound with Brian Roberts too (Cubs), exciting times.

by Sigur Ros on Jan 8, 2008 11:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

If it's Jones, Clement, and Tillman, I give this one as a win to the Mariners. A 20 year old pitcher who is years away from even thinking about a major league contribution and a talented OF who won't hit breaking stuff can be counted as acceptable losses here. The only guy I'd hesitate to give up would be Clement, but even he has his flaws.

It's time to cash in the Adam Jones trade chip, and getting a No. 1 SP sounds like a great return.

by mrkupe on Jan 8, 2008 12:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Can't hit the breaking ball?

You sir, are not paying close enough attention.

by elrey34 on Jan 8, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The O's really need to sell Bedard...

This is a decent haul for Bedard, whom I have a sneaky suspicion will have his stock drop dramatically next year.

Adam Jones and Jeff Clement are pretty much major league ready now, and are pretty projectable which is exactly the type of prospects Baltimore should be targeting.

The O's are still a mess of an organization, but this deal would be a step in the right direction.

by Andrew Friedman on Jan 8, 2008 2:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Let me get this straight

Bedard is a 29 year old LHP that had a 3.16 ERA, averaged 10.9 K/9, 2.8 BB/9, doesn't give up many HR, and is cost controlled for 2 more years, so the Orioles should trade him? Based on what?

This trade will show why they are a loser organization. They have no pitching as it is, so then they go ahead and trade a stud like this? They should be looking into keeping him long term. I'll tell you one thing... the Yankees and Red Sox won't be losing any sleep over the fact that the Orioles added 2 hitter prospects for Bedard. They'll be feasting on that pitching staff even more...

This whole thread is filled with this notion that these prospects are worth more than probably the 2nd best LHP in baseball (with all due respect to Sabathia, Kazmir, etc.) who continues to improve year after year. It just doesn't compute to me...

by jc3 on Jan 8, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if the O's could sign Bedard long term

they would have already... Bedard has shown little interest in staying with the team come 2010, and I can't really blame him.

Better to make this kind of deal a year early, than a year too late...

by SLK on Jan 8, 2008 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Compute this

Look, I love Erik the Orange as much as the next guy (probably more), but let's not lose sight of what he'd done prior to his exceptional 2007 season.

As late as 2006, his K/9 numbers were in the high 7s, and his BB/9 numbers were in the 3s.

Obviously, his components were much better in 2007, and I for one think he has established a new level. But, I don't think it's by any means a foregone conclusion that he'll continue to put up K/BBs near 4 for the rest of his career. And I certainly do not think that his 2007 clearly vaults him over pitchers like Sabathia, Kazmir, Hamels, etc. for best LHP in baseball, non-Santana division.

There is risk here, with Bedard. Injury risk, contract risk, and risk his 2007 was an aberration.

by Yakker on Jan 8, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Teams with

2 catchers like this would possibly be could just spilt time with one at 1b and one a C reducing the wear and tear on the catchers and perhaps increasing production and longevity.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Jan 8, 2008 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jones

when did he become a superstar and when did the Mariners become adept at developing hitters with mediocre power (as in a balanced mix)?

I've seen a lot of the Sin Soo Choo type go through and nothing sticks. Even the way they are trying to make Lopez become a total slap hitter scares me with what will be attempted with Jones.

I think the deal would be a steal for the Mariners but the only wild card being Clement.

by pedrophile on Jan 9, 2008 12:00 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

well

if you could never develop ANY hitter then your chances of winning is essentially nil anyway.

by RollingWave on Jan 9, 2008 6:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nah

it's a certain type of hitter they've been terrible at developing. And the problem has principally been in the majors.

btw:

C Johjima (Japan)
1B Sexson (Milwaukee)
2B Jose Lopez (Seattle) - and being destroyed, ask Seattle fans
3B Beltre (LA)
SS Betancourt (Seattle) Not much of a hitter but a decent player
LF Ibanez (Seattle) fyi was horrible with Seattle. Blossomed after trade.
CF Suzuki (Japan)
RF A.Jones (Seattle)
DH Vidro (Montreal)

I don't see much in the way of home grown talent here. Only Ibanez became a solid hitter. He was totally inept in about 4 seasons then had a great breakout for KC.

IMO Seattle tries to mess with their hitters approach far too much. If they want a certain approach this should start from bottom up. From Rookie ball all the way up. Look at Jose Lopez rise in the minors and he destroyed the ball. Now he's been taught to be a slap hitter and like it.

by pedrophile on Jan 9, 2008 7:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think anyone is calling Jones a superstar

But he crushed AAA as a 21-year old who played his home games in a below-average run scoring environment and showed that he can be at least a solid defensive centerfielder (translating to a plus defensive corner outfielder, if he doesn't play CF) with room for growth since he hasn't even been playing the outfield very long. Guys with his profile and skillset generally do well for themselves. He's a much better prospect than Clement.

by patsfan on Jan 9, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like him, but ...

guys with his profile seem to be handled terribly by Seattle.

I honestly don't see him as more than Coco Crisp. This isn't a knock. I think Crisp is terrible under-rated.

But as we saw in Oakland, for all the moneyball talk, it was having the 3 aces that made them a perennial contender.

Get Bedard, extend him, then enjoy.

by pedrophile on Jan 9, 2008 10:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree with this

I just think that the M's haven't really had guys with his profile in recent years, due to terrible terrible drafting and high picks lost to free agent signings under the previous regime. So for me it's difficult to downgrade Jones because of this.

by patsfan on Jan 10, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

more update

FOXSports.com's Ken Rosenthal believes that an Erik Bedard-to-Seattle trade is closer to completion.
Sources told Rosenthal that the two sides are still differing on one player of the deal. Rosenthal says nothing about Jeff Clement in his newest report, instead mentioning right-hander Chris Tillman, top shortstop prospect Carlos Triunfel and reliever George Sherrill as possibility to be moved along with Adam Jones. Jones is almost surely a lock to be in the deal. We assume two of the other three would go. If the Orioles have a chance to get Triunfel, they need to pull the trigger.

The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.

by Savoy on Jan 9, 2008 11:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

from Rotoworld

The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again.

by Savoy on Jan 9, 2008 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rosenthal presents NO new information here.

They're one player away this week just as they were one player away last week. The Orioles instead of asking for Brandon Morrow, who the Mariners adamantly won't trade for some inconceivable reason, and now they're asking for Chris Tillman, who the Mariners also want to keep.

Move along, there's nothing to see here. //Barbrady off

by elrey34 on Jan 10, 2008 1:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs