Dave With Brock And Salk

Dave · January 21, 2010 at 1:21 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

I’ll be on with the guys on ESPN 710 at 2:00-ish.

Here’s the link to the audio – apparently they made fun of how fast I talk after I get off the air. I can’t help it. Salk gets five hours a day to give Washburn a tongue bath, and I only get 10 minutes to make the opposite case.

Okay, I just listened to the audio of their speed test between me and Pete Carroll… and it’s really funny.

Comments

61 Responses to “Dave With Brock And Salk”

  1. Paul B on January 21st, 2010 1:39 pm

    Be prepared to discuss Washburn. They think the M’s should sign him.

  2. Paul B on January 21st, 2010 2:19 pm

    re Washburn, how did you avoid mentioning FIP?

  3. TeamIDFC on January 21st, 2010 2:20 pm

    Dave, I sooo hope you are right about the potential 3-put with Lopez. Oh, happy day… :)

  4. jephdood on January 21st, 2010 2:21 pm

    Tilde!

  5. jdbullock on January 21st, 2010 2:24 pm

    Way to nail the tilde question, Dave.

  6. Willmore2000 on January 21st, 2010 2:33 pm

    Didn’t catch it, anything interesting in the interview?

  7. Nik Aitken on January 21st, 2010 2:44 pm

    My favorite part was definitely when they asked about getting another SP, and one of Brock and Salk mentioned Washburn but Dave said he’d rather get someone who is good.

  8. Liam on January 21st, 2010 2:50 pm

    Didn’t catch it, anything interesting in the interview?

    One point that Dave brought up is having Washburn as your #3 guy at Yankee Stadium in the playoffs. He’s not going to have Safeco Field to prop him up against a potent lineup.

  9. Alex on January 21st, 2010 2:51 pm

    Tilde!

    Explain?

  10. Liam on January 21st, 2010 2:54 pm

    Salk was commenting on Dave’s twitter name being @d_a_cameron (his use of the underscores) and asked about a key on the other side of the keyboard. He didn’t know that “~” was called a tilde.

  11. Willmore2000 on January 21st, 2010 3:01 pm

    Salk was commenting on Dave’s twitter name being @d_a_cameron (his use of the underscores) and asked about a key on the other side of the keyboard. He didn’t know that this “~” was called a tilde.

    I guess he never cheated in action games.

  12. Toddk on January 21st, 2010 3:03 pm

    He didn’t know that this “~” was called a tilde.

    As in “~ cows come home”

  13. johnfree63 on January 21st, 2010 3:35 pm

    I just got in so I missed the interview. What did Dave have to say about Lopez?

  14. zzyzx on January 21st, 2010 3:36 pm

    Kind of sad that the tilde thing was all they cared about. Of course I was thinking of the backtick…

  15. dingbatman on January 21st, 2010 3:51 pm

    Dave clocked in at 4.9 words per second blowing the rapid fire talking Pete Carroll out of the water. The guy doesn’t take a breath.

  16. dingla on January 21st, 2010 4:00 pm

    Dave clocked in at 4.9 words per second

    that was funny

  17. Liam on January 21st, 2010 4:10 pm

    I just got in so I missed the interview. What did Dave have to say about Lopez?

    Still expects him to be traded. The full interview will be posted here when it is available.

  18. Willmore2000 on January 21st, 2010 4:19 pm

    Still expects him to be traded. The full interview will be posted here when it is available.

    Even after the meet-up? I got the impression of the reverse.

  19. Liam on January 21st, 2010 4:35 pm

    When asked, that one was of the three moves that he expected the Mariners to make.

    -Trade Lopez and pieces for a starting pitcher or left fielder. (Francisco Liriano was mentioned)
    - Sign Orlando Hudson.
    - Depending on the return for Lopez, get either a starting pitcher or left fielder.

  20. Marinersmanjk on January 21st, 2010 4:41 pm

    Liam is that Dave expecting that? is he still expecting any of these moves? i got in late so unfortunantly i didn’t get to hear the show.

  21. dingbatman on January 21st, 2010 5:40 pm

    Liam is that Dave expecting that? is he still expecting any of these moves? i got in late so unfortunantly i didn’t get to hear the show.

    Yes, Dave said something along the lines of “he wouldn’t be surprised to hear next week sometime that Lopez would be traded and the remaining moves would fall into place after that depending on the return.

    He also mentioned something about Sheets being the hot topic but switched to Liriano. I couldn’t hear what the problem with Sheets was (money?). Anyone know?

  22. Marinersmanjk on January 21st, 2010 5:46 pm

    dingbatman I would figure money. According to Geoff Baker we have around 10 million left to throw around and if we are planning on getting rid of Lopez, we would then get Hudson who we woujld pay considerably much more than Jose. Plus, we would have to pick up the contract for whoever we get in the Lopez trade. (Liriano?)That leaves us with probably around 4 million left to spend. I think GMZ would rather pull that trade and have money left over and get as much as we could from Lopez while we can, than committ 10 million to a guy in Sheets who hasn’t faced a major league batter in over a year.

  23. dingbatman on January 21st, 2010 6:08 pm

    I’m going to be surprised if Sheets signs for that much. If he’s throwing as well as the M’s scout says he was he could be a good pickup. Although I wonder why the M’s scout would be so vociferous and public in his praise. Seems like if you were serious you’d want to keep the hyperbolic praise to a minimum until after you made the signing.

  24. Pete Livengood on January 21st, 2010 6:39 pm

    Dave, your link goes to the general page, where the link 710 ESPN says is you is a Seahawks show from about a week ago….

    Not having heard the show, but following the thread:

    - I would be surprised to see Lopez traded, if only because I don’t see why a team needing a 2B wouldn’t simply sign Hudson rather than trade for Lopez. I would be happy with a trade that gets a decent #3 SP candidate in return for a package that includes Lopez, though, and I love the idea of Hudson.

    - Sheets has been my favorite of all the high-risk, high-reward pitchers out there. I doubt he gets anything close to $10M, but wouldn’t be surprised to see him get $5-$8M on a one-year, fairly incentive-laden deal that might include some kind of vesting mutual option for a second year.

    - If Sheets isn’t the guy, I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Bedard back on maybe a $2-$3M deal, even if it means they start the year with 3-5 slots filled by the winners of competition among RRS, Vargas, Snell, Fister, French, Olson, or maybe Nick Hill, allowing Bedard to join the rotation by May or June.

  25. Scott5000 on January 21st, 2010 6:42 pm

    is it just me or are B&S links messed up? the Cameron and Krueger links are podcasts of B&S talking football.

  26. Liam on January 21st, 2010 6:44 pm

    Yes, the podcast links on their page for today’s show are not from today.

  27. henryv on January 21st, 2010 6:49 pm

    Brock Huard looks evil.

    Don’t really know why, but he does.

  28. Liam on January 21st, 2010 6:51 pm

    The link is fixed now, you can hear Dave’s portion here.

  29. diderot on January 21st, 2010 7:18 pm

    I know I’m in a small minority here, but someday I wish someone would explain the push to trade Jose Lopez. I understand that Safeco works against him…and he’s not Utley or Kinsler in the field, either. It may be true that his trade value would never be higher. But really–Orlando Hudson?
    I see that both Chone and Marcel have Jose and Hudson exactly the same in wRC+ for this season. Jose has a higher ISO…he’s a better fielder…and he’s six years younger. I also presume he’d still be a little cheaper.
    So even if it meant we landed a #3 starter in a trade…would it compensate for the decline in performance at second base?

  30. matthew on January 21st, 2010 7:31 pm

    4.93! That’s an awesome WPS Dave!

  31. mikey2312 on January 21st, 2010 8:27 pm

    Dave, I have to agree…you talk too fast. You always sound really nervous and it’s almost as if you’re trying to get in as much information as possible which is rarely the goal. I know it’s hard to control, but you should definitely try to slow down because I think your speed causes your statements to get lost on the more casual fan who might not follow your line of thinking.

    Still, I always tune in when you’re on…

  32. Dave on January 21st, 2010 8:30 pm

    That is me trying to talk slower.

  33. Jimmie the Geek on January 21st, 2010 8:31 pm

    I’ve never listened to these guys before. They’ve really got a hard-on for The Bus. Sheesh. :roll:

    Oh, for FARK sakes… they’re on about the “big bat” nonsense now, too.

    Hey, have you heard that the M’s have Cliff Lee now? :p

    Jimmie

    P.S. Tilda Swinton :)

  34. Dave on January 21st, 2010 8:39 pm

    Brock and Salk are easily the best thing going in local radio. Even though Brock is a football guy, he’s made significant strides to learn about where we’re coming from and see how our point of view, even if he doesn’t agree with it. Salk knows baseball really well, and is just a good dude.

    We don’t agree on everything, but I have a lot of respect for both.

  35. Briggstar on January 21st, 2010 9:21 pm

    If Dave’s mouth is capable of issuing semi-intelligible words at that impressive rate, just imagine the backpressure building up as his brain is formulating 10x the amount and trying to jam them down the chute. We are all witnesses.

  36. Liam on January 21st, 2010 10:22 pm

    Took a listen of the previous hour with Bill Krueger just to see what he was going to say.

    “Johjima, Betancourt and Beltre these guys were just cancer to the whole work the count deal.”

    - Doesn’t think the money will go to Felix’s head.
    - Likes Washburn as much as Brock and Salk do (On a one year deal).
    - The owners are colluding to lower player salaries.
    - Mark Lowe for the #5 spot?
    - Where’s Endy Chávez?

  37. Adam B. on January 21st, 2010 10:33 pm

    Well Dave at least you don’t type like you speak.

    Thatwouldalmostbeunintelligible. ;)

  38. joser on January 21st, 2010 11:11 pm

    it’s almost as if you’re trying to get in as much information as possible which is rarely the goal.

    That’s exactly Dave’s goal. I know it’s not necessarily the goal of the “morning zoo” style sports shows (though I have to say Brock and Salk are the first such show I’ve actually been able to mostly tolerate, at least when they’re talking baseball), but Dave doesn’t have the benefit of having four hours (or whatever they’re on for) to get out everything he wants to say.

    Folks can replay it as many times as necessary if they’re having trouble understanding him. (What do you mean, you listen on the radio? What are you, a buggy whip salesman?) In fact you can download the podcast and play it back as slowly as you like (even Windows media player has this option).

    Oh, and memo to Salk: hold down the Alt key and type 0241 on your numeric keypad. That’s what us geeks do. (There are easier ways to do it in some apps like Word or if you have the “international” English keyboard installed, but the Alt method works with everything)

  39. SethGrandpa on January 22nd, 2010 1:14 am

    Dave – Any chance we could get a write-up on creative possible destinations for Lopez if your gut feeling is right and he is getting shipped?

  40. Mekias on January 22nd, 2010 8:32 am

    During Dave’s segment and in other segments, a possible Lopez trade, leading to a Hudson signing was mentioned. One reason being that Hudson is a great defender and Lopey is horrific. Is this where UZR fails?

    Hudson:

    2006 : -1.3
    2007 : 0.5
    2008 : -5.1
    2009 : -3.3

    Lopez:

    2006 : 4.7
    2007 : 1.4
    2008 : -5.8
    2009 : 1.2

    It seems to me that Hudson’s former defensive glory has overhyped his defense and Lopey’s occasional bumbling plays have undervalued his defense. How is it that we use UZR constantly for other players but tend to toss them aside when it comes to Lopez?

  41. drw on January 22nd, 2010 8:34 am

    Listening to Dave on the show (and at the Benaroya meeting as well), the main problem that I have is that he does not pause enough. Everything comes out in one long torrent (and largely with the same cadence) so you don’t hear the important things (like Liriano’s name) emphasized. Just adding a pause after sentences, or after an important element of a sentence, would help greatly. As someone who listens (and talks) for a living, it’s hard for people to absorb what you are saying if you don’t give them enough help in the presentation. Even if you can’t slow down any more than you have, you might be able to simply add pauses in strategic places to assist the listener.

    The other point is figuring out the context of your audience and what information is “enough.” You have the same tendency I do — I want to tell the whole story, not just the highlights or the quick edited version, and that takes too much time in many contexts. Given the amount of time available and the limited ability of people to hear and absorb the points you are making, it’s often not necessary (or even helpful) to back up a point with two or three supporting facts — those just get in the way of the listener understanding (or hearing and remembering and comprehending) your main point. Less is more, especially in that forum. Of course, there are exceptions when you are digging into an issue (like Wash v Liriano), but as a general rule . . .

    As far as pushing out as much information as possible as a “goal,” that’s what this website is for.

  42. Gabe on January 22nd, 2010 8:39 am

    Funny that Olney now mentions that he hears the M’s have been looking at Lopez deals.

  43. dingbatman on January 22nd, 2010 8:44 am

    How is it that we use UZR constantly for other players but tend to toss them aside when it comes to Lopez?

    And offensively Hudsons OPS
    2007 .817
    2008 .817
    2009 .774

    Lopez

    2007 .639
    2008 .764
    2009 .766

    This seems exactly opposite of what the media are saying. Seems like Hudson would be a slightly worse defender but a better hitter.

  44. Mekias on January 22nd, 2010 8:51 am

    This seems exactly opposite of what the media are saying. Seems like Hudson would be a slightly worse defender but a better hitter.

    Exactly. I don’t like Lopez’s approach at the plate and would take Hudson in a second if we were just looking at their bats. But the defensive arguments are confusing the hell out of me. Hopefully if we do trade Lopez and bring in Hudson, he’ll be fairly cheap and we’ll get some good value back from Lopez. I don’t really want to pay Hudson 8 mill.

  45. NLhamster on January 22nd, 2010 9:56 am

    I know this is off-topic but… [deleted, off-topic]

  46. Alex on January 22nd, 2010 9:59 am

    I dont understand why Orlando Hudson is considered better than Lopez.

    wOBA:
    Hudson projections for 2010 on Fangraphs are between .333 to .344.
    Lopez projections for 2010 vary from .321 to .331.
    Hudson is about .01 better, or ~5 runs over a season.

    UZR:
    Hudson’s last three years sum to -7.9, or -2.6 per year.
    Lopez’s last three years sum to -3.2, or -1.1 per year.

    Hudson looks barely worse, but the difference is so small that we cant really be sure who is better. They both appear to be -5 < x < 0 fielders at 2B.

    Age:
    Hudson is 32, Lopez is 26. Lopez is just hitting his prime and should not be expected to decline next year. Hudson should be projected to have about a .5 win decline.

    WAR:
    Hudson comes to about 2.2-2.7 WAR next year.
    Lopez projects to about 2-2.5 WAR next year.
    Hudson is about the same, possibly better by up to a half a win or so. He looks to be between 0 and .5 win better than Lopez next year. And probably worse two years from now, as he would decline more in his age 34 season than Lopez at 28.

    They seem quite similar, except that Hudson is older, and he costs more.

    I guess the trade Lopez theory hinges upon getting good value for him, such that youre making a big upgrade elsewhere on the team, and then can sign Hudson to fill in the hole, and net a couple wins.

    We certainly shouldnt be looking to trade Lopez just to trade him, this doesnt help unless you get good value.

  47. JerBear on January 22nd, 2010 10:18 am

    Hey Dave – you should hire a radio-interview-speaking coach.

    I want my money back.

    I kid, I kid. Excellent stuff as always – and I had no problems at all understanding you or keeping up.

  48. adm2009 on January 22nd, 2010 10:37 am

    Angel Pagan is looking even more available with the Mets trade for Matthews…

  49. Arron on January 22nd, 2010 10:40 am

    I think the reason to trade Lopez would be only to upgrade in either LF or SP. If you could get a better player there than what we have, then you do it, and sign Hudson to a 1-year deal. Hudson and Lopez are pretty much a wash, with a LITTLE advantage to Hudson if he stays healthy.

    This also opens up 2B for Ackley when he is ready.

    I don’t think Z would trade Lopez just to move him. He’d be getting us back something to help the 2010 team and beyond.

  50. BrownL on January 22nd, 2010 11:00 am

    I don’t think Z would trade Lopez just to move him. He’d be getting us back something to help the 2010 team and beyond.

    Precisely. Lopez can a) get something of value back on the trade market, being young and relatively cheap, b) be easily replaced in the short-term via free agency, and c) is currently blocking one of our best prospects. Yes, Orlando Hudson would most likely cost more and give a similar value to Lopez for 2010, but Lopez is a guy that other teams will want, and is ultimately expendable on our end.

    Didn’t Dave have a post to this effect some months ago?

  51. everett on January 22nd, 2010 11:22 am

    The goal of Lopez isn’t trading him because we don’t like him. The purpose would be that he’d have more value to other teams than he does to us, given that this is pretty much the worst situation he could be in. By trading him we could get something that has more value to us than he does, while the other team would get a player who has more value to them than he does to us. This would then allow us to sign Hudson, who has similar value to Lopez, leading to no downgrade at 2B, and an upgrade elsewhere.

  52. joser on January 22nd, 2010 12:25 pm

    Didn’t Dave have a post to this effect some months ago?

    Yeah, in his Liriano post. More in the comments than in the post itself since Lopez was just suggested as a way to get Liriano, which as everett just noted, is the point. You’re not trading him to get rid of him, you’re trading him to get something of value. You then go get Hudson not because he’s better but because you need a 2B and Hudson isn’t any worse. The net effect is that the team gets better, even though you didn’t upgrade at 2B, and you’re not blocking Ackley if he develops even faster than expected.

    So you’re not chasing Hudson because he’s somehow “better” and you don’t trade Lopez just to get him off team. If you’re not using Lopez to get something of value, you sit tight with your nice cheap 2B with some power, poor range, and lousy OBP. As Dave said in another post

    he has value at his production/cost level, so giving him away is pretty foolish. In reality, the M’s best option is probably to let him keep the spot warm for Dustin Ackley, hope he has a big year, and try to trade him again next winter.

    I’m not sure about that last point, though: if the team picks up their 2011 option on him, he will be owed $4.5M and will no longer look “cheap” to other teams (unless 2010′s “big year” was really big*). If Ackley looks ready, rather than a “sign and trade” scenario they may just decline the option.

    *Which would be awesome. Hey Jose: if there’s ever a year to go “big”….

  53. eponymous coward on January 22nd, 2010 12:32 pm

    Well, if it ends up being Liriano for Lopez (as suggested in the link above), sign Hudson, I think there’s also case of keep Lopez, sign Sheets (as an example of a FA out there). You don’t HAVE to trade Lopez (and I suspect the market for 2B isn’t all that awesome, given that Hudson’s still on the market).

    Then again, presumably Zduriencik and the M’s scouts has a better idea of whose arm is more suited for throwing 180 midlevel starter innings (which is basically what we are wanting at this point) than any of us do.

    As for Washburn, if Sheets and Liriano don’t pan out… well, on a one year deal that isn’t too extravagant, sure (Washburn’s a ~1.5 WAR pitcher). Problem is that he turned down one year, $5 million from the Twins. I don’t think you’d want to pay much more than that.

  54. Paul B on January 22nd, 2010 12:33 pm

    Before they can trade Lopez for real value, they need to figure a way to slyly suggest that the other team should look at home/road splits.

  55. meloyellow15 on January 22nd, 2010 12:47 pm

    Before they can trade Lopez for real value, they need to figure a way to slyly suggest that the other team should look at home/road splits.

    Colorado might be an interesting fit. They have solid depth in the outfield and are in the market for Hudson. Only problem is that all the outfielders that might be availabe in trade are lefthanded.

    I could see Lopez exploding at Coors Field though.

  56. Toddk on January 22nd, 2010 12:50 pm

    Before they can trade Lopez for real value, they need to figure a way to slyly suggest that the other team should look at home/road splits.

    How about posting them on billboards in a few select Major League citites?

  57. Toddk on January 22nd, 2010 12:53 pm

    *cities.

    Tried to edit but was told I didn’t have permission to edit my comment.

  58. mattlock on January 22nd, 2010 1:31 pm

    I remember way back at the beginning of the offseason, Dave suggested a Lopez/Lowe/Vargas trade for John Danks. I realize that he wasn’t necessarily saying that the M’s SHOULD use those exact players for that exact player, but that that was an idea of the kind of move he expected.

    What happened to this idea? Did I miss something about Danks being less than available? Did the fact that the Teahan acquisition implies that Beckham is being moved to 2nd make Lopez undesirable to the Sox?

    It seems like Danks would be a pretty decent option, though I’m not sure whether the Sox would be willing to give him up. He would cost more than Liriano ($3.45MM vs. $1.6MM), and would possibly have a lower potential upside. But this could be balanced out by his higher potential downside.

    I dunno, just an idea that was revived in my mind last night whilst listening to Dave set mouth-speed records.

  59. Liam on January 22nd, 2010 2:20 pm

    I realize that he wasn’t necessarily saying that the M’s SHOULD use those exact players for that exact player, but that that was an idea of the kind of move he expected.

    From one of Dave’s comments,
    I’d be surprised if more than one or two of these moves actually happened. It’s not really a prediction of what the team is going to do.

  60. TeamIDFC on January 22nd, 2010 5:01 pm

    I heard the call-in part but just listened to podcast of the speed test. Dave, you rock!

  61. The Fabulous Orcboy on January 25th, 2010 3:17 pm

    I really didn’t think Carroll was all that fast. Dave seemed fast, but not exceptional. Then I realized that y’all are on the West Coast, where people taaallllkkk sssllloooowwwweeeerrrrr.

    So yeah, Dave. You gotta play to your audience; when it’s a slow-talking audience, you gotta slow down or they’ll miss stuff.

    Or come to the NYC area, where there are plenty of folks on the air who talk as fast (or faster) than you do. The downside is that you’ll probably have to talk about the Yankees :)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.