Comments on: Monday also holds no interesting news

By: SCL

SCL — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:38:04 +0000

I guess as I think about it, Bell could work in the roster:

Backups
OF – Reed/Jones
1B – Broussard
2B – Vidro
SS/3B – Bell?
C – Rivera or whoever

With 12 pitchers 8 in the field, that makes 25.

Anyway — I’m just scratching for some USSM discussion.

By: AQ

AQ — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:35:14 +0000

I don’t know, maybe it’s the “best” part of that quote that really irks me. I’m probably splitting hairs here, but I think there would be another way to address that question (if I’m Armstrong):

“We have no interest in David Bell at this time, due to the fact that we believe that Willie Bloomquist can fill the team’s needs better”

I think it’s the “Best utility player in MLB” superlative that has me concerned with their talent evaluation.

By: Ralph Malph

Ralph Malph — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:32:34 +0000

If you’re a major league executive who just signed a mediocre player to a contract extension, and you’re asked if you want to sign an overpaid, aging, mediocre player to fill the same role, what would you say:

No, I think David Bell is an aging, overpaid, mediocre player and even though Bloomquist sucks, I don’t think I’d want to take on Bell just to get rid of him.

No, Willie is the best utility man in baseball.

Of course extending Willie was kind of a dumb move. But that’s a done deal. Having made that deal, you can’t expect Armstrong to say anything other than what he said.

By: AQ

AQ — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:29:12 +0000

I think I still would take Bell at $4M (for one year, not a multi-year deal) over Bloomquist to be a utility player. I would do that if it meant that I never had to see Bloomquist kill a rally at the plate or needlessly dive for a ball when he’s in CF.

I guess my point would be that David Bell might not be the end-all, be-all player either, but he’ll do less to hurt you at the plate or in the field than Willie does.

My main contention (originally) was with the ignorant statement that Chuck Armstrong made about Willie being the best utility player in MLB. That was more of what I was trying to convey rather than endorsing the acquisition of Bell. I can understand why they might not want Bell, either. But their logic behind not wanting Bell (Willie being the “best” utility player in MLB) is crazy.

By: Ralph Malph

Ralph Malph — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:23:25 +0000

When the team doesnâ€™t realize that David Bell >>> Bloomquist, then something is wrong. Is the concept of OPS completely foreign to them?

Saying a guy is better than Bloomquist is certainly damning him with faint praise. Besides, what is it about David Bell’s OPS that you like? His lifetime OPS is 716. That’s better than Bloomquist, sure, but pretty lousy in its own right.

By: SCL

SCL — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:16:48 +0000

You are changing the discussion.

Other replacements >> Bloomquist? — Yes.
Prime McLemore >> Bloomquist? — Yes
Bell OPS >> Bloomquist OPS — Yes
Is Bloom overpaid — Yes

So I agree with you on all those points. Still, are you seriously take Bell $4M as a utility player over Bloomquist $1M?

By: AQ

AQ — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:10:10 +0000

But what does Bloomquist really offer? The only halfway positive thing I can say about him is that he doesn’t completely embarrass himself in the field or on the basepaths. There are plenty of guys that are lingering in the minors that we could obtain that could do just as well as Bloomquist (if not better) and not get paid $925,000/year to do it.

Bloomquist is not even a replacement level player in terms of productivity. His “versatility” in the field and the fact that he can swipe a bag here and there doesn’t change that fact.

By: SCL

SCL — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:06:32 +0000

I’m not talking about McLemore either. I am not even saying that Bloomquist is good. He’s not.

But situationally, if I had to pick right now between having Bloomquist or Bell, I would put Bloomquist on my roster. That’s all.

By: SCL

SCL — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:04:29 +0000

I am talking about value to the Mariners.

Based on OPS, of course Bell >>>> Bloomquist. But Bell can only play 3B. Beltre >> Bell. Based onversatility Bloom is more valuable than Bell. (It does pain me to say that.)

However if you can make the point that Bell >> Vidro and sign him to DH, I can conceed. But that’s not happening this year.

By: AQ

AQ — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:56:59 +0000

To emphasize the point more, here’s the career line of Mark McLemore (who never set the world on fire as a hitter, but was a serviceable utility player):

.259/.349/.341

Compared to Willie’s career line:

.257/.312/.329

And before you argue “well, McLemore did better on the back end of his career. McLemore was no better than Bloomquist at age 28″, examine this:

McLemore (age 28): .284/.353/.368
Bloomquist (age 28): .247/.320/.299