And my larger issue with the Morrow discussion
There’s been a huge amount of criticism of Dave (and my) writing on the Morrow-League trade for not having the same insight into the players that the front office does. That we should take the judgment of sound talent people and call it good, in so many words.
Which is fine, to some extent: we don’t know Morrow, or League, personally, and certainly haven’t spent the time evaluating them and their health as long as the Mariners have with Morrow.
What’s concerning is this is exactly the same argument people raised whenever the Bavasi front office (and before that, Gillick) made a move we disagreed with. That all of us are on the outside doesn’t make a considered opinion invalid, or even without insight (or, as commenter Ivan likes to say, “I don’t have to be a chicken to tell you an egg’s rotten”).
I went back through some of the Bavasi off-season moves and it’s there for them all, though from different people, couched in different language, for things like the Everett signing (maybe they see that his swing’s made for Safeco and he’ll hit 20 HR/80 RBI…) (fun side note: people pointing out Branyan was set to make less than Bloomquist in 2007 in this comment thread), or the strange trade pursuit of Juan Pierre (remember that? (shudder)), and on until the front office had lost everyone.
Here’s my proposal, then: I’m entirely willing to acknowledge (as we’ve done with Morrow) that a trade makes sense if you make some evaluation that the team may have arrived at. And I’m happy to argue for or against that evaluation, though I worry we risk wasting a lot of effort arguing things we can’t know.
And in return, let’s not argue that those things are given: that if we believe the reason a trade or a signing happened was unprovable thing x, that isn’t in and of itself proof of thing x.
Because we’ve all made those assumptions and seen them fall flat.