The day in tidbits

DMZ · July 7, 2005 at 9:25 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Rumor roundup:
PI: Guardado to Boston discussions “preliminary”. Boone may head to the Padres, Twins, Nationals, but no sources.

Times: Ichiro may compete in the home run derby (which this year has been made even lamer by forcing it into a nationalistic competition).

The PI has this fine Doyle quote on his return to the majors after three years:

“Same game,” he said. “Ninety feet to first. Keep it simple.”

Snelling was also named to the Pacific Coast League All-Star game, though like injured King Felix, he’s not going to show.

From the Seattle Times, this made me think of Miller’s Crossing:

Instead of meeting with the inconsistent Gil Meche yesterday, manager Mike Hargrove let pitching coach Bryan Price handle the discussion. Both Hargrove and Price laughed when it was noted that Price and Meche went to sit into the stands for the talk and Price came back alone.


147 Responses to “The day in tidbits”

  1. Ralph Malph on July 7th, 2005 3:25 pm

    Trade Guardado yes. Speed and defense not necessarily.

    The 2001 team did not win because it had speed. More than anything else that team won because it could hit. First in the league in batting average, on-base percentage, and OPS+. Third fewest strikeouts. Fourth in the league in slugging. Led the league by a long shot in runs scored (5.72 runs per game!).

    Yes, defense was also a big part of that team, and helped make the pitching great. But please let’s not make the M’s a bunch of banjo hitting speedy singles hitters. They aren’t going to win that way.

  2. Dave on July 7th, 2005 3:29 pm

    So many just blatently wrong statements in this thread…

    get speed and defense, play small ball in Safeco. It worked in ‘01.

    If you think the M’s played small ball in 2001, you’re insane. The team slugged .445 in Safeco Field, and the offense was led by Edgar Martinez, John Olerud, and Bret Boone.

    I would like to see Zach Day in a Mariner’s uniform.

    Yes, the team needs more crappy pitchers. 6.75 ERA, 25 walks, 16 strikeouts this year. 144 walks, 163 strikeouts in his career.

  3. roger tang on July 7th, 2005 3:32 pm

    re 101

    Exactly. It was a myth that the 2001 team won on speed and small ball. It was a great offensive team over the season. Yes, it had great defense, but that’s what we have NOW…defense alone will not win without offense and pitching.

  4. David J Corcoran on July 7th, 2005 3:34 pm

    That high SLG is based on high amounts of doubles. Granted we did have power, but except for two hitters, that number is all from doubles We had mucho stolen bases, bunts, and doulbles, which I have been taught is the essence of small ball

  5. eponymous coward on July 7th, 2005 3:34 pm

    I see we’ve now gotten to the hilarity portion of the thread, now that Cristian Guzamn, Zach Day and the 2001 team being based around speed and defense have shown up..

    Yeah, that Edgar and Olerud, they were real speed demons that year. Why, they even did a double steal one game in 2001…

  6. Jim Osmer on July 7th, 2005 3:36 pm

    Assuming Winn is traded plus Pokey and Shiggy do not have options picked up: the M’s have only about 51 million in guaranteed contracts for next year. Number goes down to around 44 if Villone and Eddie are traded.

    That is a lot of spending room to get some pitching in the rotation. Joel is the only starter under contract and the only starter I would consider bringing back. We should pick up at least one good young starter this year in trades. Add Felix and a healthy Bobby and then free agents.

  7. roger tang on July 7th, 2005 3:38 pm

    Doubles? Doubles are slugging. Doubles generally require power (something we don’t have that much at the moment). Doubles are NOT the essence of small ball from anything I heard…

  8. msb on July 7th, 2005 3:40 pm

    #105– eponymous coward said: “Yeah, that Edgar and Olerud, they were real speed demons that year. Why, they even did a double steal one game in 2001…”

    and that right there sums up just why 2001 was such an amazing flukey year, and unlikely to ever be repeated 🙂

  9. Ralph Malph on July 7th, 2005 3:45 pm

    No, it wasn’t doubles. The 2001 team was 6th in the league in doubles. The D-Rays had more doubles that year and they were last in the league in runs scored. It was just good all around hitting. Their batting average was 10 points ahead of anyone else in the league. Their OBP was 10 points ahead of anyone else.

    The team leaders in SLG were Edgar, Olerud, Cameron and Boone. Yes, Cammie had speed but he also hit 25 HR.

  10. Steve Thornton on July 7th, 2005 3:46 pm

    The fun thing about “small ball” is that it’s undefined. Corco says it’s “stolen bases, bunts, and doubles”. The addition of doubles is unusual; I don’t think I’ve ever heard doubles mentioned in a “small ball” tribute before. More usually, you hear about it in conjuction with “playing for one run”. You also never hear about teams that play “small ball” and suck, as almost all of them do.

    In reality, the M’s were sixth in doubles in 2001, and eighth in HR. In an extreme pitchers’ park. We had a terrific multi-faceted offense, excelling at small ball, big ball, and every kind of ball in between, plus great starting and relief pitching. The stolen bases and sacrifices and what have you had very little impact on our win total. Scoring tons and tons of runs had a TON of impact.

  11. Evan on July 7th, 2005 3:47 pm

    The 2001 M’s had as their #3 & 4 hitters the #2 & 4 guys in the AL in OBP.

    That’s why Boone had so many RBIs. Edgar and Olerud were on base in front of him for more than half of his plate appearances.

    That’s not small ball.

    The 2001 M’s also had one of the better bullpens in baseball history.

  12. Brent Overman on July 7th, 2005 3:51 pm

    msb & 74 –

    As I said in # 67, all of those guys had middling success as starters, yet turned in to dominant closers, all leaving us to say, “whoudathunkit?”

    Take a guy from a 5-7 inning pitcher every fifth day and give him the ball for 1 inning 4-5 times per week and perhaps his command could improve from regular work.

    Remember Rivera as a starter? He sported an ERA in the mid-5’s back in the day.

    I’m not saying that Meche is the next stud closer, but he fits the mold of past evidence that leads one to think he may succeed in that role.

  13. David J Corcoran on July 7th, 2005 3:55 pm

    My Pap and Gramps have always told me that anything that ain’t a home run is small ball.

  14. johnb on July 7th, 2005 3:59 pm

    I don’t see Meche as a closer or reliever because he would take too long to warm up to go in the game.

  15. Daaaaan on July 7th, 2005 4:16 pm

    #111 actually if you look at his splits for 2001, he racked up RBI’s faster when hitting in the 3 hole than in the 5.

  16. chico ruiz on July 7th, 2005 4:19 pm

    Dave: What do you think of Kelly Shoppach? Granted, pitching would appear to be the M’s top priority, but if Boston is after Guardado, would Shoppach be useful to us, or is his offense too suspect?

  17. Dave on July 7th, 2005 4:29 pm

    Shoppach has a great chance to be the next Dan Wilson. A servicable player who is league average in his prime. With the selection of Jeff Clement, he’s redundant.

  18. Evan on July 7th, 2005 4:32 pm

    I’d rather have Jeremi Gonzalez, mostly because we have greater need of pitching than we do of catchers.

  19. adam on July 7th, 2005 4:36 pm

    The problem with Meche closing is he can lose his control beyond recovery for no reason at all.

    He would be great at closing, if you knew everytime he went out there he’d be pounding the strike zone.

    Eddie is great at that, and he has a 88 mph fastball.

  20. LB on July 7th, 2005 5:08 pm

    #118: Jeremi Gonzalez — Ohmygod. If you want pitching, why do you want him? He’s 30 years old. If you lookup “journeyman” in Webster’s, you’ll find his picture. The M’s crappy offense knocked him out of the game after 3-1/3 IP this May with 7 runs scored and 2 HR’s.

  21. CDub on July 7th, 2005 5:20 pm

    #96 Payton to Oakland would make sense if Beane is going to trade Kotsay to the Cubs or Yankees, as has been rumored. That would be an extremely unpopular move here in Oakland considering their recent run, but might be a good case of selling high if Kotsay is asking for too much and they can get good value (Felix Pie?) in return.

  22. CDub on July 7th, 2005 5:22 pm

    re: #117
    Gammons said last night that the M’s had no interest in Shoppach or Millar, for what that’s worth.

  23. David J Corcoran on July 7th, 2005 5:41 pm

    What would we do with Millar?

  24. David J Corcoran on July 7th, 2005 6:28 pm

    Bloomquist @ Short again…

  25. Jim Osmer on July 7th, 2005 6:44 pm

    No Morse No Doyle
    Pisses me off.

    This must confuse Morse.

  26. David J Corcoran on July 7th, 2005 6:46 pm

    Not nearly as much as it is confusing Corco.

    Willie must be being showcased, no matter what Dave says. I don’t think he’s EVER gotten 6 starts in a row.

  27. roger tang on July 7th, 2005 6:47 pm

    re 125

    Confuses me, too.

    Yeah, give him some time off, but how’s he gonna learn anything if he doesn’t get right out there….

  28. Felonius Drunk on July 7th, 2005 6:48 pm

    Hey Dave – Regarding Sanchez, do you actually feel Boston would deal him for anything we could offer though?

  29. David J Corcoran on July 7th, 2005 6:49 pm

    The day before he got benched, he went 1 for 3 with a walk. That’s not grounds for benching somebody.

    There are only two possible reasons for this:

    Willie is being showcased
    Morse pissed Hargrove off

  30. Jim Osmer on July 7th, 2005 6:55 pm

    I think Grover does not like Morse.
    However it cannot make Bavasi happy to see Grover not playing Morse (your top Batting average on the team) or Olivo (Borders just started 4 games in a row).

  31. CDub on July 7th, 2005 7:01 pm


    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Morse have a history of so-called “attitude problems” with the ChiSox (and even the M’s post-trade last year)? Which would make the latter explanation possible anyway; I will withhold comment on the possiblility of the former…

  32. Jeff Sullivan on July 7th, 2005 7:02 pm

    Bloomquist is red-hot at the dish right now. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why he’s starting again.

  33. David J Corcoran on July 7th, 2005 7:06 pm

    Why at shortstop though?

  34. Jeff Sullivan on July 7th, 2005 7:15 pm

    Because Morse isn’t good?

  35. Jim Osmer on July 7th, 2005 7:40 pm

    How long till Beltre’s OPS crosses .800?

  36. Jeff Sullivan on July 7th, 2005 7:58 pm

    A while.

    Beltre’s overall numbers won’t really matter, though, provided his June/July turnaround sticks.

  37. AK1984 on July 7th, 2005 8:20 pm

    Why does Josh Paul have a job? He seems to be the most worthless player in major league baseball . . .

  38. DMZ on July 7th, 2005 9:23 pm

    On Bloomquist starting consecutive games:

    While it’s true he doesn’t often start this frequently, just last year, he had game played streaks of 9 and 13 and a 6-7 or two in there as well. In 2003, he had a couple longer game started streaks.

    So this isn’t unprecedented or anything.

  39. Mountainman Ernie on July 7th, 2005 9:30 pm

    Well when will Mister Bill learn? Get Price outa here, he’s the cancer in the dugout. Pitchers come and go but he remains, WHY? Who’s covering for him anyway? Give us a real pitching coach PLEASE!
    Bring in someone like Stan Williams was.


  40. Logan on July 8th, 2005 12:02 am

    Broomstick had 188 at bats in 2004 and I never heard any trade discussions about him last season. Could the real answer be, Dare I say it….Hargrove and Bavasi incompetence? Willie is not the next Podsednik. I am shocked there are still closet Bavasi supporters that use the “showcasing” excuse to cover up the absurd hard cold facts that prospects have been called up and waste away on the bench without any planning as usual.The DFA’ing of Boone has been the lone move that had an actual plan after calling up a prospect(ex:Lopez). I am curious if Willie’s recent good fortunes at the plate are really why he is starting over Morse. If Morse struggling at the plate was the real reason for his benching then why hasn’t Jose Lopez been benched yet?

  41. roger tang on July 8th, 2005 12:13 am

    re 140.

    Heh. If that’s your evidence for Bavasi incompetence, I think it’s incompetence shared by the rest of the organization (judging and inferring from what other people closer to the club has written). The organization’s love afair with Judy Bloomquist and Dobbs (and their dislike of Guillen) predates Bavasi…..

  42. Ray Oyler Fan Club on July 8th, 2005 1:08 am

    the following things are true:

    1. you’ll never get a straight answer out of Bavasi.

    2. the M’s had better get good value if they trade Guardado.

    3. Mike Morse = Wally Pipp

  43. Brent Overman on July 8th, 2005 8:07 am

    Adam @ 119 –

    My point with Meche closing is that his command may actually improve from frequent work, i.e. out of the bullpen.

    At this rate, what have they got to lose?

  44. Logan on July 8th, 2005 11:18 am

    That’s not my evidence. Under Gillick (also a bad GM in my opinion) Bloomquist was never a starter and was used to fill in for injuries, given a tryout at third base and after a look was sent back to his utility job where he remained. Last season Willie should have erased any doubt that he could be a starter with the M’s. As far as bashing the whole organization, I am very satisfied with the Mariners Scouting system, and the competitive payroll. (we are no Tampa Bay) However, the current GM has a losing record, and he was not responsible for any World Series rings as his supporters love to point out. And I would be very happy seeing Mike Hargrove in a FSN exit interview discussing his termination.

  45. Logan on July 8th, 2005 11:21 am

    Never a full-time starter, is more clear on my point. I realize Bloomquist has not been announced the opening day starting shortstop, but it would not suprise me with the Bavasi/Hargrove dynamic duo.

  46. Mountainman Ernie on July 8th, 2005 2:11 pm

    Pitchers here are far from the problem, watch Price during the game nothing is going to improve until he’s gone. I recall last year when Jeff was in trouble, you could see he was enjoying it. Remember, Melvin wasn’t the problem.


  47. JasonAChurchill on July 8th, 2005 3:50 pm

    Re: 64

    I’m actually with ya, Dave. I believe it’s better to get the guy with the highest ceiling, then to get two players of more than marginally lesser talent.

    I like Lester, quite a bit, but Sanchez is clearly a better prospect than either Lester or Papelbon.

    I just don’t think there is anyw ay Boston sends Sanchez out west for Eddie.