Comments on: Ibanez in left

By: Breadbaker

Breadbaker — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:31:13 +0000

I would have liked to have seen a Wlad-Ichiro!-Reed outfield with Raul at DH and Vidro somewhere in the general vicinity of Mauritius. The moment Reed was called up, Wlad was pretty much stuck on the bench (yes, he wasn’t hitting, but he, not Vidro, will still be in the majors when the Mariners next make the playoffs–let him take his licks). With Wlad down and Clement up, the M’s have only Bloomquist as an alleged replacement outfielder, and he won’t be made a late-inning defensive replacement because he’s the only pinch runner on the bench (and the M’s have three guys who need pinch runners).

By: jlc

jlc — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:16:10 +0000

My take is that there’s some Vidro-love involved, but the bigger reason Raul is still in LF is that he’s hitting, relatively speaking. One of the great baseball gems of wisdom is that it takes time to adjust to the DH and there are lots of guys whose hitting suffers. Since we need him to hit, I think they think, and he hasn’t lost a game for us in LF but has won them with his bat, he’s not a problem.

By: jro

jro — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:45:59 +0000

It’s one thing when the season doesn’t quite pan out, and it’s quite another when adding insult to injury by moves like continuing to run Ibanez out to left field. Given the other defensive options, defending this move is simply not feasible.

I would like to know what their peers (other teams) are thinking in terms of Ibanez. Do they see Mclaren the same as us and think “what on earth are you doing, old man?”

By: shortbus

shortbus — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:44:54 +0000

Thinking back to last year’s explanation for not calling up Jones, the team (McLaren?) was saying he didn’t want to take Vidro’s bat out of the lineup…that such a move makes the team more right-handed.

Vidro then went on a luck-driven “tear” and confirmed the non-move.

My guess is that even though there’s a left-handed replacement for Vidro’s spot in the lineup with a better OPS in Jeremy Reed, and Ibanez’ defense still stinks…this same thought has become so firmly lodged in Mac’s thick skull that he won’t budge on Vidro. Pelekoudas is going to have to DFA him to get Vidro out of the lineup.

By: John in L.A.

John in L.A. — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:44:05 +0000

Hoser – I didn’t feel you were being snarky at all. I think I spend so much time here deferring to people who know more than I do about math and science (not to mention baseball) that I get over-excited about subjects I have studied more extensively – like word choice.

By: DMZ

DMZ — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:35:49 +0000

Here’s the thing about the assertion that they understand Ibanez sucks in left: there are really only two paths to go on from there.

a) they’re just trying to assuage people and don’t really think that
b) they think that but don’t do anything about it

Either of which is a compelling direction to follow… but it’s not. It’s “they know he stinks, of course they do, why would you think they don’t, move on.”

Which is not an adequate response.

By: Jeff Nye

Jeff Nye — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:33:23 +0000

I don’t think you really have anything to apologize for tone-wise, hoser; and I agree that sometimes the definitions of things like nominal and putative get closer in common usage than they maybe should.

I just think nominal was a poor choice in this particular situation, but no real harm done.

And hoo boy are we off-topic.

By: shortbus

shortbus — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:31:12 +0000

I’m with eponymous…I think the big problem is Mac’s secret man-crush on Vidro. Those big, sexy batting averages of yore. That musky professionalism. His dreamy above-team-average OPS with RISP. While everyone in the world knows he should be DFA’d, Mac would freakin’ marry the dude if he could.

By: hoser

hoser — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:30:10 +0000

40, 43 – I can see your point of view.

And, I should confess that while I begged to differ politely, in rereading my post, it looks like I then went on to be somewhat snarky. For that I apologize.

I also enjoy using “nominally” as meaning “in name only”, so I feel disappointed that it also seems to mean “putative” in common usage. If you look up the common usage definitions at dictionary.com,

1. dictionary.com #1 lists “in name only; so-called; putative” together, even though they are contradictory

2. American Heritage #2 says “Existing in name only.”

3. Websters #1 says “actual” meaning real and #3 says “in name only” meaning not real.

By: busplunger

busplunger — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:28:28 +0000

Yesterday morning, in his epic pre-Bavasi-firing post, Geoff Baker noted that the front office has to be aware of Raul's shortcomings in the field, but his opinion was that they just didn't feel like they had a better choice in LF given the current roster construction. ("Believe me, anyone can see that Ibanez needs to be pulled out of left field.") I think the general idea must be along the lines of "we can't be running Wlad and Reed out there in the same outfield every day", which most here probably wouldn't agree with, but sounds like the stream of consciousness we might hear from this organization if they were capable of thinking out loud. But then they go and let Reed (and now Kenji) try on a first baseman's glove, which proves we're all living in Bizarro World... that's in the other thread, of course.