Really, Geoff? Really?
I’ve been trying not to bite on a couple of Baker’s blog posts, because I don’t think we can evaluate the team’s offseason yet. But this —
Bring in a hitter at the expense of upgrading the starting rotation? That was what many were calling for, if not Jeff in particular. Let’s see, had the club kept Adam Jones in right field, it would now have a .632 OPS hitter playing that spot rather than Brad Wilkerson. Net gain there, despite Jones being slightly “better” if you can call it that, would be about zilch.
I’m not sure that anyone called for “bringing in a hitter at the expense of upgrading the starting rotation”. If anyone proposed that, let me know.
But really? This is a serious argument? That Adam Jones, a good defensive outfielder who hasn’t hit well but has still hit way better than Wilkerson, would be a “zilch” upgrade over the dessicated corpse of a player we’ve seen for 45 at-bats?
And what about the bullpen? For all the writing Baker’s done about the bullpen, here he’s omitting that the M’s traded, along with that right field upgrade, George Sherill, and when Putz was out we all saw what happened. You don’t think there’s a game in that?
In the meantime, we’ve gotten diddly/squat out of Bedard. So if you want to evaluate that part of the off-season so far, it stunk. It was horrible. The M’s got robbed.
Now, that’s just how things have gone so far, sure, and maybe Bedard will go 20-0 over the rest of the season while Jones doesn’t get another hit.
But if you’re going to pass judgment on the trade now, it was awful. There’s no getting around this. The M’s would at this point in the season have done better if they hadn’t made that trade.
And if you want to argue that there’s no way to know that, that we can’t predict how they would have performed if they hadn’t made it (and so and so forth) then I don’t understand how you could say that a certain course of action wouldn’t have helped or not. If it’s all impossible to say, then it’s all inconclusive and no trade is either good or bad at any point in time. We can never judge anything.
This offense is to the point where one big bat isn’t going to make much of a difference. The team needs some of its existing bats to get going. It also has the option of interchanging Wladimir Balentien and Jeff Clement with some existing hitters if things don’t improve.
That’s silly. If you’ve got an offense of Ichiro and Beltre, you don’t have to get seven new hitters to get better. You need one. And then another. It’s not like the team is down a ten foot well and getting two feet up only causes them to slide back down. Fewer outs means more runs means more wins. Improvements help.
This offense doesn’t have to be night and day better than it is right now. Just more consistent. Too many games, as one of you noted, where the team scores four runs or less. Even with standout pitching, it’s tough to always hold opponents to three runs or fewer. Add another run per game, though, and the one-run wins should start to pile up in Seattle’s favor.
Ron Fairly? Is that you? I remember you from that “four runs or more” point you repeated over and over.
Subtract a run given up, and they’ll win more too.
The whole concept of “more consistent” is silly. It’d be great if you could get players to schedule their hits, but you can’t. It’d be great if you could stop scoring runs in a blowout and stash those for an extra inning game later, but you can’t. Has there ever been a team that was able to score four runs a game every game? Or even three runs a game, every game? Can you build a team around offensive consistency?
No. No one’s ever scored the same number of runs. No team that’s been better at scoring runs has been better at scoring runs at the same level game after game. They score more runs in general, and they get them in bunches and they get shut out. It’s the way offenses work.
Try to score more runs all the time. Try to prevent more runs all the time. Win more games.
Come on, Geoff. I expect better from you than that.