For all Washburn discussion, though, I’m left with one major question. I suspect my low level of understanding of statistical analysis is causing some major holes in my logic. I would just like for someone with more knowledge to explain what those holes are.

I agree with what seems to be the common understanding on this website, which is that Washburn is currently an overvalued asset, and most of his improvement is because of the Mariners’ improved defense.

If the Brewers’ pitchers after Gallardo weren’t terrible, I would hate the idea of Washburn joining the staff. However, he may be a comparative improvement, even in a less pitcher friendly ballpark with less pitcher friendly outfield. As it is, I’m skeptical, and the Brewer fan part of me really does not like Washburn.

However, the Mariner fan in me is actually coming around to valuing Washburn. That said, if I were only a Mariner fan, I would love a straight up trade for Hardy. However, I’m wondering why when Washburn’s value to the Mariners is discussed, it seems his value is always discussed in absolute terms, whereas, I would think–admittedly, probably incorrectly–that his value would be better measured relative to the circumstances in which he pitches. It seems that because the Mariners have defense that complements his pitching style and has allowed him to look like a really good pitcher, continuing the pairing of Washburn + great outfield defense would allow him to continue to be, at worst, a better than average pitcher for the Mariners. Perhaps I tend to over-value that because other pitchers have not yet been able to equally take advantage of the defense (I’m sure a great shortstop would help) or maybe I’m not sufficiently accounting for luck. Why isn’t Washburn more valuable to the Mariners (and therefore the Mariners to Washburn) than he would be to other teams? Thanks for any feedback.

Dave said “I wouldn’t trade Jones for Bedard, straight up.” I think time has proven him right. Great prospects and prime defensive positions are really rare and worth a lot.

Dave was right. But, we traded our CF of the future, and a year and a half later, we have two new CFs of the future (Gutierrez and Ackley). Did it set us back a few years? Of course! But it’s not like the M’s turned into the Royals. One of the problems with that trade was the Bedard trade showed the division between the best course for the club (building with youth) and the best course for the GM (win now or be fired).

Yes, you can do the “boom and bust” model where you try to win it all and then clear the decks and start over, or you can keep trading away players as they get old and expensive and replacing them with cost-controlled guys from below.

And that’s all I’m saying, that they have two strategies from which to pick. I saw a lot of “they won’t” in this thread. I’m only saying they might. Because I really wish the M’s had gone with the first option at the beginning of this decade when they had their window.

But if it was just Jones for Bedard, we just drafted Dustin Ackley.

At the time of the Bedard trade, Dave said “I wouldn’t trade Jones for Bedard, straight up.” I think time has proven him right. Great prospects and prime defensive positions are really rare and worth a lot. The way to overcome ugly escalating contracts is to replace them with cheap, good guys you’ve developed. Yes, you can do the “boom and bust” model where you try to win it all and then clear the decks and start over, or you can keep trading away players as they get old and expensive and replacing them with cost-controlled guys from below. They already tried to go all the way with the Sabathia contract last year; I don’t know how many more of those they have in them. And, as others have said, given that precedent there’s no way they trade away a better prospect to get a lesser pitcher.

I’m sorry, but this is lunacy. I guess this is wishful thinking that some day we’ll fleece another team the way the Orioles fleeced us, but how much better off would we be if we had Jones, Sherrill, and soon-to-be-MLB-stud Chris Tillman back? With whom are we “replacing” those guys from our own system?

Well, I’m not expecting to get the equivalent of Jones, Sherrill and Tillman. But if it was just Jones for Bedard, we just drafted Dustin Ackley. And don’t forget Franklin Gutierrez.

If we’re talking about the Brewers trading for Washburn, they’re obviously gunning for this season. Their deal for Felipe Lopez indicates that. Last year’s Sabathia trade indicates that’s their strategy. Prince Fielder’s skyrocketing contract after 2010 — along with the increases Gallardo, Hardy and Braun will be due in coming years — indicates a reason for urgency in Milwaukee.

I’m not saying they would trade Escobar-for-Washburn and Morrow and/or whoever else. But there would be a rationale for them to make that deal. So I wouldn’t rule it out like others have. If they are targeting this 4 or 5 year period (beginning in 2007), maybe Escobar doesn’t surpass Hardy until after they’ve lost Fielder to an $18 million contract from the Cubs. And if they’re making this deal for this year, then certainly Escobar can’t be counted on to improve over Hardy. And Hardy doesn’t make sense for the Mariners.

Maybe I’m just being hopeful.

Something tells me this isn’t going to get done before Washburn’s next start.

What should the club do? Let him pitch and risk injury or a bad performance? Or, bench him until he’s traded?

cysco