Saturday: 12 pitchers again! Wheee!

DMZ · March 18, 2006 at 3:59 am · Filed Under Mariners 

PI: M’s lose, but Everett hits his first homer. Not of his career, of course. Despite the hype, neither Vina or Bloomquist played. Appier hurt himself.

From the Seattle Times:

Since Mike Hargrove plans to keep a dozen pitchers, the Mariners will have 13 position players on the 25-man active major-league roster on opening day.

This is so dumb. 5 starters + 6 relievers didn’t work out so well for us last year.

Anyway, Finnigan figures that with C = Johjima, 1B = Sexson, 2B = Lopez/?, SS = Betancourt, 3B = Beltre, LF = Ibanez, CF = Reed, RF = Ichiro!, and DH = clubhouse leader Everett, that leaves 4 spots left. A backup catcher, then Bloomquist takes one if he’s not the 2B, Lawton’s the backup OF, and that means you only get to pick one of “Roberto Petagine, Greg Dobbs, Mike Morse or Cody Ransom.”

Cody Ransom? They’d consider that?

So look at what these guys offer:
Petagine: left-handed bat, might rake. Can’t play good defense anywhere, may be passable at 1B. (PECOTA: .257 .349 .419 ) No speed.
Dobbs: left-handed hitter (PECOTA: 246 .274 .356). No speed.
Morse: right-handed hitter (PECOTA: .252 .301 .397). Was decent at short, bad in left, may have improved his defense there.
Ransom: right-handed hitter. No PECOTA, but he can’t hit. No speed. Plays the infield reasonably well.

When you look at this team, then, which of these guys would provide the most value? Ransom’s Bloomquist without any basestealing ability. Petagine is the best bat of the bunch, but given that the team’s got two DHs in Ibanez and Everett, Lawton probably chewing up some LF time, finding him any kind of regular ABs is likely to be a challenge.

The nature of building a bench is that you don’t get to pick starter-quality players. I don’t get to say “well, obviously, the team needs a crackerjack switch-hitter with a great glove” because you don’t get that.

Instead, how about this: the M’s play in a huge, spacious park with a massive outfield. Every candidate on the roster who supposedly plays LF is bad at it (well, Bloomquist isn’t bad). No one can play center well behind Reed except perhaps Ichiro. There are pitchers on the team who could really use a solid defensive upgrade there, some of them in the bullpen. It’s not a huge deal, but unlike the skill set of Morse (can’t hit, can’t field) it does offer the team something they don’t have. Even playing Choo as a 5th OF (with primary Reed-resting responsibility) gives the team some options (PECOTA, btw, .268 .337 .396) and he has some baserunning speed.

I’m not convinced Choo’s the answer (or Bohn or anyone). It’s strange that besides Petagine, the players being discussed as candidates for the bench don’t offer the manager anything, be it additional tools or options within a game. There’s no need they fill or help they offer.

Comments

46 Responses to “Saturday: 12 pitchers again! Wheee!”

  1. Churchill on March 18th, 2006 4:16 am

    Totally agree.

    Word is that once second is wrapped up, Bloomquist is going to get some time in center to be the main backup for Reed, not unlike a year ago.

  2. terry on March 18th, 2006 4:25 am

    The solution is easy….carry 13 pitchers and the argument about last guy on the bench is solved 😛

    Truthfully, IMHO, the M’s really dont have enough quality bench candidates to force Hargrove to back off the 12 arm strategy……

  3. Tim_G on March 18th, 2006 6:55 am

    I’m not sure this adds any light to the firmament, but FWIW, Petagine was certainly a very good hitter as recently as 2003, and 35 isn’t that old, is it? Same age as Everett, and for that matter myself. If he’s back to health.

  4. Paul B on March 18th, 2006 7:35 am

    Maybe they would start the season with 12 pitchers, then when Lawton can play they would reduce that to 11?

  5. davepaisley on March 18th, 2006 8:01 am

    BTW, according to the play by play radio I was listening to yesterday (KIRO, Rizzs), Vina did play – coming in around the 7th inning. He fielded a ball for an out and then got an AB soon after.

  6. David J. Corcoran on March 18th, 2006 8:17 am

    “Bloomquist might have been regarded all along as option 1-A for second, since his primary value in everyone’s eyes, including his manager, is his ability to produce.”

    Heh.

  7. shirts on March 18th, 2006 8:45 am

    I have a favorite line from this one too:

    “Morse, despite his nice job with the bat as a rookie in 2005, is most likely to go out to play outfield full-time.”

    What does one have to do with the other?

  8. basebliman on March 18th, 2006 9:02 am

    Actually, Vina did play, but hever got an AB, just came in on defense late in the game.

  9. Tom Davis on March 18th, 2006 9:13 am

    Actually, Vina did have an at-bat – just not an official one (from the box score):

    HBP — by Junge (Vina)

  10. Tek Jansen on March 18th, 2006 9:17 am

    #3 — Petagine was a good hitter last year, at AAA, and his cup of coffee with the Red Sox was adequate. I have also read that Petagine won GGs at 1B in Japan. Does that actually indicate any level of defensive talent, or are the Japanese GGs as random as the ones they hand out here in North America?

  11. msb on March 18th, 2006 9:39 am

    I think Finny has a short attention span, and as Cody Ransom has been used late in the games the last few days he remembered his name & so threw it in the article ….

  12. toonprivate on March 18th, 2006 10:09 am

    Well, I understand the cautious approach to the staff — how many times this season will the starting rotation make it past the 6th inning? If you think the answer is pretty low, then you want a LARGE population in the bullpen. And so does Grover.

    Maybe the problem goes back to the Everett signing, which forced Ibanez into the field, which meant we REALLY needed someone to come in as a defensive replacement at the end of games. And none of us expect Everett to hit very much — less than Petagine would? Maybe.

  13. Homer Runt on March 18th, 2006 10:38 am

    Has “Grover” (yet another inspired imprimatur in a long line of professional sports moniker-making creativity) yet announced that Dobbs (now, to Marinerize his name is it add just “-y” or “-ey”? Cuz Morse would definitely be “Morsey” like in “horsey”, right?) will be challenging Adrian Beltre for the starting 3B job? They are, after all, both entering their “AGE 27 *TM” seasons. But it’s cool, cuz if Beltre-y loses out to Old Gregg (watch “The Mighty Boosh”) as a starter, he’ll provide real sock off the bench. Embarrassment of riches folks. Embarrassing.

  14. eponymous coward on March 18th, 2006 10:42 am

    The problem I see is that given that Hargrove has nine positions set (assuming Lopez at 2B), it’s going to be hard enough getting Lawton and Bloomquist regular work, barring injury. The third bench player is going to be pretty rusty a lot of the time, or only getting PH appearances when the team is behind.

    Yeah, the fixation by MLB managers on LOOGYs, as opposed to using their better relief pitchers for longer stints is unfortunate- since it tends to make benches very shallow, makes you less willing to platoon players who REALLY need it (Everett), and overemphasizes no-hit players who can suck at multiple positions (WFB) over players with offensive ability (Petagine). What’s even more frustrating is that I think it’s pretty hard to keep a 11-12 man bullpen fully effective at some points in the season- It’s pretty common that you’ll have a week-ten day stint where every starter goes 7 or more innings, with some CGs, and all of a sudden someone’s sat rusting for a week without working in a game.

    So giving Hargrove a deep bench is kind of like giving your grandma a Ferrari to drive to the store and to hair appointments- it’s not likely to get the optimum usage you’d want, thanks to the team’s fixation on having a very poor DH soaking up plate appearances that could easily be spread out to keep your decent bench options fresh and productive. Given that, I’d probably take Petagine as opposed to the other choices (since he’d likely be the best PH- basically, he gets Dave Hansen’s old job). If Reed goes down and you need a CF, you can plug Lawton in for a game, and then you can bring Choo up; I think he’s more likely to be able to be plugged in more effectively in CF playing every day in Tacoma as opposed to getting 2 ABs a week.

    It sort of sucks to be Mike Morse in this scenario…but maybe he needs to be playing the OF every day in Tacoma if he wants to be decent. Plus he might be the guy you call up if Everett or another OF goes down and he’s looking good. It’s unfortunate that the roster is constructed so that Everett is going to get time at the expense of Lawton, Morse and Petagine (yes, I know, Morse’s PECOTA numbers suck- except my intention would be to use him primarily vs. LHP as a platoon partner, the place where he’s most likely to be useful).

  15. CSG on March 18th, 2006 11:12 am

    Finnegan was on the radio broadcast on wednesday and was talking up ransom for some reason. Does he feel comforted by scrappy white guys?

  16. Mat on March 18th, 2006 11:37 am

    “It sort of sucks to be Mike Morse in this scenario…but maybe he needs to be playing the OF every day in Tacoma if he wants to be decent.”

    Morse only has 182 ABs at the AAA level, and next year is his age 24 season. As we’ve discovered, he’s not such a highly talented prospect that he obviously needs to be playing in the majors. If he’s not an option as a backup infielder, then I don’t see any reason he shouldn’t start in Tacoma this year. It might be a little demoralizing after playing with the M’s for most of last season, but he is switching positions, so he’d probably somewhat understanding of the decision.

    I agree with Derek on the point that in this ballpark, with these left-fielders, and no one obviously good at backing up CF defensively, this team should have a solid defensive outfield relief ace on the bench. There’s got to be some non-prospect out there that can do this job. Even if he doesn’t get regular at-bats, he wouldn’t be on the team to hit, he’d be there to catch the ball (and throw it when necessary).

  17. joser on March 18th, 2006 12:17 pm

    Does it really matter who is the last guy on the M’s bench when Hargrove has shown repeatedly he doesn’t have a clue about using it anyway? More than giving your grandma a Ferrari to drive to hair appointments, it’s like giving a calculus textbook to a rabbit — he’ll chew through it indiscriminately and claim he’s using it in exactly the way it is intended.

  18. DMZ on March 18th, 2006 12:26 pm

    The starters are going to go deeper in games than they did last year, that should be obvious. Felix, even pitch-conservation Felix, is good for six. So’s Washburn. Depending on Moyer’s use, there’s a risk there. Meche and Pineiro are both risks to come out in/before the sixth.

    But still — that’s about 15, 20 IP of work/a week. Assume Hargrove keeps Guardado only for save situations of 1 inning, Guardado’s likely to come out say… three times. More if you think the team’s competitive. So 12-17 IP are available a week for the remaining five relievers.

    We’re going to see what we saw last year: some relievers are going to go long stretches without appearing in games, and that’s no help to them, the team, and it’s a waste of a roster spot.

  19. metz123 on March 18th, 2006 12:50 pm

    re: 14 – Why would you want to even attempt to get Bloomquist regular work? WFB’s only value to the team is late inning defensive replacement in LF while Lawton serves his suspension. After Lawton comes back his only value is as pinch runner.

    Since the 25th man is only going to be used as a late inning pinch hitter Petagine is the logical choice because he may be able to hit. I’m all for Grover carrying 12 pitchers because I think this team is going to need more mop up guys in the pen than a warm body spitting seeds in the dugout.

    While Felix & Washburn may be able to go 6 regularly, you can’t count on any of the other guys to give you 6 any time out and most likely 1 out of 3 will wash out in the early innings each start. Toss in the fact that I don’t want them riding Felix this year and I think we’ll have enough innings for the bullpen. Given the use of the conditional single batter reliever in any close game and we’ll need all 12 IMO.

    Personally I’d be all for carrying a 24 man roster on this team. Twelve pitchers or not they are going to be carrying a player on the roster they have no use for.

  20. T-dawg on March 18th, 2006 12:57 pm

    I am not a fan of deeper pitching rosters. in fact, after being forced to pitch non-traditionally with randomly talented high school pitching rosters for 4 years i am for scrapping standard bullpen model entirely. 13 pitchers???? no need at all. in fact, can you even find 13 MLB level pitchers with which to form your roster???

    Why is baseball tradition so rigid? Starter. Mid-relief. Set-up. Closer. LOOGY. etc. Closer only closes. Starter only starts. Most high school rosters can’t afford to do that (and realistically most MLB rosters can’t either, but they continue to try)… I often started a guy the MLB would only throw in short relief. I knew he often would go 3 innings max, and often less (Mateo, Putz, Meche, Pineiro currently). Then i would bring in a another pitcher for as long as he could go or 60 pitches. Then another, if needed. If we get in a jam, well, one or two guys (Soriano and Eddie, Felix) can come in and get us out of it. Felix could do that and still go 5-6 innings 4-5 days later, and maybe deeper. And overall it would keep his (and other traditional starter) pitch counts down, while lengthening some of the relievers who could handle it and eventually those that can’t would be counted on for shorter less critical stints or removed from the “rotation” entirely and another pitcher would replace them.

    No scientific evidence here, only anectdotal, but the human body, for what ever reason, recovers better under such a format too. When pitch counts stay high the body builds up a certain tolerance, but when pitch counts alter it seems that pitchers handle it better and feel fresher sooner.

    Is not anyone else taking notice of the WBC and the way teams have adjusted to the format/rules by creating non-traditional pitching rosters and non-traditional relief patterns? (See Cuba, Korea) And after all, one reason we have baseball in Seattle right now is because the Big Unit came on in relief against the Angels back in 95.

    Why don’t people break from tradition when tradition has proved ineffective?!? has Hargrove or BillyBav ever read Tipping Point or Moneyball and thought… “hmmm… wonder if i can use any principles here to build a new way of looking at my team. Different can be good.”

    okay… now as far as bench construction:

    i would love to see Morse in AAA, Petagine make the club (remember, even though I love him, how many seasons have seen 150+ games for Richie Sexson? or Everett or Lawton for that matter), Willie B superstah stud sub, the obligitory back up catcher and a ptbnl that can actually play outfield defense, once Everett fades into the place mediocre sluggers go to die (a cornfield in iowa, maybe?)

    WFB= speed, defensive versatility
    Lawton= speed, bat, OF capable
    Petagine= bat, bat, bat, 1B capable
    Rivera= career back up catcher
    Everett= big paycheck on the bench.

    …and can i just reflect on how glad i am we didn’t pay the Chief 6/7 mil a year multiyear so we could lock up Washburn for 150% of what Freddy wanted, at an older age. but i know.. that’s a gripe, what’s done is done.

  21. T-dawg on March 18th, 2006 1:00 pm

    don’t know why the hell I wrote 13 not 12. still stupid either way, given the way pitchers are utilized.

  22. Grizz on March 18th, 2006 1:50 pm

    With a 12-man staff/4-man bench and the regular lineup, Hargrove really can only pitch hit once per game. While there are two regulars (Betancourt and Lopez) for whom Hargrove might want to pinch hit, he would have only one defensive replacement for both of them (Bloomquist). For most games, he couldn’t use both Lawton and Petagine in the same game. (Even if he waits until the bottom of ninth, he risks playing extra innings with Sexson at 2B).

  23. little joey on March 18th, 2006 2:06 pm

    There’s really no solution to the question of whether to keep 12 pitchers or 5 bats on the bench. The difference between what the 12th pitcher or 5th hitter contributes will not amount to a game this season. Even if it does, then what?

    Agreeing with what DMZ said, keeping 12 pitchers means the Mariners will have to try a little less to find 11 good ones. Having Matt Thornton on the roster just because you can isn’t worthwhile for anyone besides Matt Thornton. If there aren’t enough innings for seven good relievers to pitch, why not keep six?

    But then, what do you give up by keeping the extra pitcher? Maybe TJ Bohn gets 100 at bats and does very little with them?

    Maybe it’s just me, but with the Mariners so far from contention, it’s really hard to care about the marginal roster stuff, which has kept me interested since ’95. Even my reading of baseball prospectus is very listless (though i don’t think it’s as good as it has been for the last 5 years), and when I continue to read M’s stuff on the net, I constantly ask myself why. Maybe Petagine will earn a spot with a good spring? Who cares? This sucks. Another Felix thread, please.

  24. terry on March 18th, 2006 4:20 pm

    I guess a cynical fan might suggest that the silver lining behind the 12-arm senario is that *Matt T., the wonder lefty* is best used every ten days……..

  25. dickpole on March 18th, 2006 5:15 pm

    Morse can’t hit? I said it before and will say it again, he was consistent at the plate last year, even after the hot start. At least as consistent as any other Mariner not named Ichiro. Let’s give the kid a chance before rolling out the PECOTA death nell.

  26. joser on March 18th, 2006 5:36 pm

    Anybody who saw or at least listened to the game today have an opinion on Felix? Judging from the boxscore, he did not have a good outing.

  27. DMZ on March 18th, 2006 6:50 pm

    “Consistent at the plate, even after the hot start.”

    (pause)

    Consistently bad, maybe.

  28. Matthew Carruth on March 18th, 2006 7:06 pm

    “Anybody who saw or at least listened to the game today have an opinion on Felix? Judging from the boxscore, he did not have a good outing.”

    4:1 KK/B, 1 K/IP, 7-0 GB/FB. I would take those periphs every time out.

  29. Ed on March 18th, 2006 8:19 pm

    My God, someone call Charles Gipson.

  30. nathaniel dawson on March 19th, 2006 3:36 am

    with these left-fielders, and no one obviously good at backing up CF defensively, this team should have a solid defensive outfield relief ace on the bench. There’s got to be some non-prospect out there that can do this job. Even if he doesn’t get regular at-bats, he wouldn’t be on the team to hit, he’d be there to catch the ball (and throw it when necessary).

    I believe they released Jamal Strong.

    Why is baseball tradition so rigid? Starter. Mid-relief. Set-up. Closer. LOOGY. etc. Closer only closes. Starter only starts. I often started a guy the MLB would only throw in short relief. I knew he often would go 3 innings max, and often less (Mateo, Putz, Meche, Pineiro currently). Then i would bring in a another pitcher for as long as he could go or 60 pitches.

    Good idea……too bad the Players Association would have none of that.

    The problem is that somebody once decided that a starting pitcher has to go 5 innings to qualify for a win……so while your idea might actually result in more effectiveness from your pitching staff, you’re not going to be able to sell it to anyone. Fans, starting pitchers, managers, front office, players union. Maybe if things continue the way they have over the last fifty years, with starters going less each game and more relievers being used, we could see something like that in the future. Say, 20-30 years from now.

    I like the idea myself. Shorter appearances, more frequently. It seems like it would be easier on pitcher’s arms and result in fewer injuries, and you could upset the other teams lineup with switching lefty/righty pitchers 2 or 3 times. Maybe have three “starters” that would go 4 innings each game, then follow up with 2-3 inning stretches with a couple or three relievers.

    Nobody would like it though.

  31. BelaXadux on March 19th, 2006 3:42 am

    Hargrove throughout his career has preferred set position players, favors spearcarriers who won’t bellyache for a short bench, and lots of arms in the pen which he doesn’t quite deploy with finesse. Consistency is his virtue as a manager, as we are again reminded . . .

    Too many arms for the pen, and it was the same all last year. But where’s the LOOGY? Sherril has been hit hard all spring; Thornton has received no overt commitment from management, and Luis el Dodger is throwing well but hasn’t pitched above AA. It’s the righties who have thrown well, and that’s where the team has too many guys in the same role. Oh well.

    Washburn’s contract may well prove to be a cement overcoat in time, but in the near term the real roster construction bungle in the offseason was Bavasi asking Mike Hargrove which of the bad, cheap left-handed socks in the drawer he preferred. Grover said “Everett” so the fans and the team bought the booby prize. Turns out, Petaigne is doing everything Carl was supposed to and better for tiny $, and Lawton is playing quite well this spring and may even turn into a moderately productive bargain—while Everett completely clogs up the roster as has been discussed above. Everett’s signing is one we should put on Bill Bavasi’s account because he had final authority but chose to punt and let Hargrove decide.

    [“I wish to pad my wight onto the growing increment of effusion.” *click*]

  32. BelaXadux on March 19th, 2006 3:44 am

    Hargrove throughout his career has preferred set position players, favors spearcarriers who won’t bellyache for a short bench, and lots of arms in the pen which he doesn’t quite deploy with finesse. Consistency is his virtue as a manager, as we are again reminded . . .

    Too many arms for the pen, and it was the same all last year. But where’s the LOOGY? Sherril has been hit hard all spring; Thornton has received no overt commitment from management, and Luis el Dodger is throwing well but hasn’t pitched above AA. It’s the righties who have thrown well, and that’s where the team has too many guys in the same role. Oh well.

    Washburn’s contract may well prove to be a cement overcoat in time, but in the near term the real roster construction bungle in the offseason was Bavasi asking Mike Hargrove which of the bad, cheap left-handed socks in the drawer he preferred. Grover said “Everett” so the fans and the team bought the booby prize. Turns out, Petaigne is doing everything Carl was supposed to and better for tiny $, and Lawton is playing quite well this spring and may even turn into a moderately productive bargain—while Everett completely clogs up the roster as has been discussed above. Everett’s signing is one we should put on Bill Bavasi’s account because he had final authority but chose to punt and let Hargrove decide.

    I’d love to have Charles Gipson back as he was and likely still could be an outstanding defensive replacement—which Lou could never accept because he preferred guys with unmatched sock. But I’d take T. J. Bohn as the next best option, and the guy has done nothing to hurt his stock this spring. All the roster retreads are going to bump him to T-town, but _he’s_ the guy who should make the team based on play and actual need.

    [“I wish to pad my wight onto the growing increment of effusion.” *click*]

  33. BelaXadux on March 19th, 2006 3:46 am

    Sorry Derek, I doubleclutched to add a comment. Please clip #31, and this comment too if you want.

  34. T-dawg on March 19th, 2006 5:14 am

    “I like the idea myself. Shorter appearances, more frequently. It seems like it would be easier on pitcher’s arms and result in fewer injuries, and you could upset the other teams lineup with switching lefty/righty pitchers 2 or 3 times…. Nobody would like it though.”

    Well, a couple things. First, everybody loves a winner, and if the team won most people would care less if the formula is unusual. I believe fans in general go to the park to see offense and victories, then pitching, in that order. So if it helps the team win, the fans are happy and the turnstiles are revolving.

    GM wins, he keeps his job; he builds a pitching staff in a unique way out of limited talent and is called a genius, he likes that.

    Manager is forced to communicate more with his staff, team harmony improves. He also finds he needs to throw “the book” out the window; book was never worth reading anyhow. (Do you have a copy?) He also realizes that the concept of closer is overrated and that every team needs a couple “stopper.” Somewhat surprisingly, he realizes that when used in effective combinations at times other than the 9th inning, several pitchers he would never prior believed could be closers turn out to be excellent “stoppers.”

    As for the players?

    Pitchers find themselves becoming more effective, they eschew stats for team goals (and are rewarded by genius GM because of it. GM even comes up with unique bonuses and incentives designed specifically to reward pitchers in this unorthodox formula.)

    Alas, the system is not perfect; several FA pitchers refuse to sign with team due to old beliefs and habits. Others because they are chasing statistical records. But…

    How many pitchers realistically are playing for traditional historical stats? and those guys (if FA’s) we probably wont sign anyway… this format is a way to maximize limited resources, as opposed to the Yankee method.

    We look past those guys and go for the type of pitchers that fit the system or are looking for bounceback years. And we find many cheap possibilities; AAAA guys, tweeners, 4 inning starters who fall apart after 70 pitches, 2 pitch 1 time through the lineup perfectionists, gimmicky mechanical guys… and they all look to the Emerald City, where they are appreciated for the talents they have instead of admonished for the things they lack. And we pay them fair dollar for it.

    Players Association would have no problem with what we do, we are paying players to perform, we are not abusing them (they should go after whoever decides to throw a guy 140 pitches if they go after anyone.)

    How many pitchers struggle badly due to arm stress and end their careers early, thereby losing millions in potential earnings? this format could potentially lengthen careers. It could make seemingly mediocre guys better than average, maybe even great in the right situations….

    the only place it doesn’t work is reality, where people stick with what they are used to for fear of the unknown; where people would rather not win than risk failure; where tradition trumps logic and ego supercedes intellect.

    but i believe it will work; Cuba is in the WBC title game with an unorthodox methodology (and why wouldn’t they? They’ve played the game isolated from us and our rigid traditions.)

    I find it strange that in sport we stick with tradition far more than most enterprises. Sport is one of the best places to see measurable results in a short period of time while trying something new. Look how many teams get a push from hiring/firing somebody… look how short a period some coaches are able to turn losers into winners, in comparison to schools or struggling businesses, or politics. Yet even in such a formula we continue to stick with what we know to be “okay” instead of searching for something better.

    I once worked under a Russian hoops coach at HoopCamps in Germany. The man was the head coach of the USSR National U-17 team; he coached Arvidas Sabonis, Sarunis Marciulionis and many of the players on the ’88 Gold Medal team. The man spoke 50 words English; maybe 200 German. I spoke 50 German and 2 Russian. The kids spoke German, with very basic English. Yet we were all able to communicate on the basketball floor.

    Despite that unusual circumstance, the unique thing about Anatoli’s coaching methods weren’t the lack of verbal communication– it was his methodology of coaching. I know basketball coaching; I’ve seen all styles and been to the National Clinics a couple times… but he did NOTHING like we do. Why? Because he was specifically ordered not to copy American drills, but to take them and make “better” drills of his own. That, comrades, was the Soviet way. And he was successful with it.

    Because I met that man… because I’ve found success going for it on 4th and 8 from my own 40 in Madden… because I had a jv hoops team with 15 players and 35 egos (including parents).. because i’m so competitive i hate to lose more than almost everybody i know…because of these and many other reasons I’m willing to look at building success in sports from new angles…

    it’s too bad the M’s aren’t as willing… not like the traditional format has given us much success over the years.

  35. terry on March 19th, 2006 6:18 am

    #25: Morse started out with a hot month followed by a decent month. He then finished with three months that saw his OPS barely at .500.

    My spidey senses are tingling….i detect a trend!

    All of this was highlighted by some of the worst defensive shortstop play that Ive seen in a while. He was so bad, the M’s moced him to left field. The only way they couldve downgraded him further was stick him at first base.

    I think the only reasons he is around largely centers on the facts that he is easter chick cheap and the M’s system is a year or two away from producing anyone who is even ready enough to learn on the job at Safeco.

  36. terry on March 19th, 2006 9:15 am

    I’m confused….. Hargrove wants 12 arms AND the M’s are rumoured to be checking on the availability of C. Wilson?

    Does that mean they’d settle on a bench of Willie and Wilson?

  37. ChrisK on March 19th, 2006 11:13 am

    “I believe fans in general go to the park to see offense and victories, then pitching, in that order.”

    That may be true in general, but I think most M’s fans go to Disneyland (whoops I mean Safeco) to see the Mariner Moose, the Hydro races, the dancing groundskeepers, Ichiro, and Bret Boone. More or less in that order.

    After all, as Lincoln likes to point out, Seattle fans are far superior to those neanderthal East Coast fans who actually boo and hold their players accountable for performance and victories. As he has stated, most Seattle fans go to the ballpark “for other reasons”.

  38. Jim Thomsen on March 19th, 2006 11:41 am

    I’ve long said I would love to have Jason Ellison from the Giants:

    a) He’s an excellent defender with a pretty good throwing arm who can play all three outfield positions.

    b) He’s young. (Well, youngish, in that he’ll be 28 soon.)

    c) He’s cheap, having made the league mininum last year and is not arbitration-eligible until 2008.

    d) He and Todd Linden are widely perceived to be fighting for the last outfield spot on the Giants, and I believe the Giants will go with Linden because of his comparative youth and perceived upside. (Both are having excellent camps; Ellison just raked the M’s for a 5-for-5 day on Friday.)

    e) He can hit a little bit (though he should never have been a starter for as long as he was last year, he can fill in as extended relief without hurting a team).

    f) He’s got local-guy pixie dust, as a South Kitsap graduate. (He lived with the Bloomquists, and was 20-0 with an 0.50 ERA as a pitcher his last two years.)

    g) If Ellison somehow wins the job, I propose we liberate Linden and get many of the same benefits.

  39. Homer Runt on March 19th, 2006 12:51 pm

    Do you really see Ellison (or Ellison as a proxy for any other of the five or twenty guys out there who can do the things he can do) as an improvement on an in-house option like Choo? Or would it be that you would rather have Shin-Soo getting some more AAA cuts in (which I could see)? I have no idea, but does Choo have a proven inability to man center field? Would he really be stretched there? I’ve never seen him play, but he looks ‘athletic’ on paper and of course has a reported bullet-arm. Is he really a terrible 5th outfielder option? I mean, if the organization can look at a player like him for what he is (a ceiling-speed/defense-4th/5th-replacement-type dude) and not worry about seasoning him at AAA, doesn’t that help the team? His PECOTA certainly isn’t digustipating but he seems to draw a lil’ ire here. Again, I have not seen him play, though his tiny MLB sample looks like an .056 on his baseball card. Whattaya think?

  40. Jim Thomsen on March 19th, 2006 1:04 pm

    Maybe it’s not entirely justified, but right now I don’t believe Choo is ready for a key role on a major league team. He’s stepped backwards from his hot-prospect status for two years now, and I think he needs to have one big year at Triple-A before he can be considered ready for any sustained role in the majors.

  41. terry on March 19th, 2006 2:08 pm

    It would be nice if choo could catch a ball without the entire crowd gasping each time its hit his way….

  42. eponymous coward on March 19th, 2006 2:21 pm

    That may be true in general, but I think most M’s fans go to Disneyland (whoops I mean Safeco) to see the Mariner Moose, the Hydro races, the dancing groundskeepers, Ichiro, and Bret Boone. More or less in that order.

    Soooo…I guess the Moose is less fun than he was in 2001-2002? The groundskeepers moves aren’t as good? Because it sure SEEMS like they’re drawing less fans than then.

    Allow me to point out that Baltimore has been miserable FAR longer than the M’s (they haven’t sniffed contention or been .500 for almost a decade, except for a very brief run early this past year, followed my subsequent de-pantsing by the Usual Suspects)…but they still draw 2.5-2.6 million. Are they going for the dot races too?

  43. terry on March 19th, 2006 3:18 pm

    In Baltimore, ya can go to a game for 5 innings, jet outside with your pals and spend the rest of the night enjoying a wonderful nightlife around the harbor. It should also be noted that the O’s play a block away from major convention activity with ritzy hotels supplying tons of out of towners. Either way, location probably gives the O’s an attendance boost akin to 25-30% during a season in which they suck on the field.

  44. eponymous coward on March 19th, 2006 3:33 pm

    OK, then Texas? Is Arlington a major nightlife hotspot?

    Seriously…nice, well-built newish ballpark+ good metro area to draw from + decent expenditures for salary = 2.4 million in the AL.

    I think the M’s want that extra 800K in attendance back, though.

  45. John D. on March 19th, 2006 5:00 pm

    HARGROVE WANTING EVERETT (See # 31) – Although I share the pessimism concerning Carl Everett’s production, I think we should cut Hargrove some slack on his favoring him over the other DHs that were out there. After all, he did prefer that we forget Delgado last year, and go after Sexson.

    5TH BENCH PLAYER OR 12TH PITCHER? (See # 23) – Six of one and a half-dozen of the other. No matter which they do, you can bet that a AAAA player (or less) will be given that spot.

    24 or 25-PLAYER ROSTER (See # 4) – Question: When a player is suspended, must he still be counted as part of the 25-player roster (in effect, yielding a 24-player roster), or does the team get to have another player during the suspension? Anyone?

  46. DMZ on March 19th, 2006 5:13 pm

    Generally — yes, they count against the roster limit. However, drug suspensions do not, so the M’s get a full 25 even while Lawton’s serving his suspension.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.