Bedard, Fields Go in Three-Way Deal, M’s Get OFs Chiang and Robinson

Jay Yencich · July 31, 2011 at 2:19 pm · Filed Under Mariners, Minor Leagues 

Deals! Just before the deadline, the Mariners pulled off an exchange with the Red Sox and Dodgers that sent LHP Erik Bedard and RHP Josh Fields to the Red Sox and brought in OF Chih-Hsien Chiang from the Sox and OF Trayvon Robinson from the Dodgers. I’ll pass over what the Dodgers are getting, as it doesn’t really interest us, and I’ll leave the commentary on Bedard and Fields limited. I’m sorry to see Bedard go because he was a good pitcher for us this year, loyal, and a rather entertaining figure so long as you weren’t trying to interview him. Fields, I think of subtraction equaling addition at this point. Our first-round pick in 2008, his command has been horrible as a pro and nothing about that has changed this season, to say nothing of the various oblique and other injuries he’s suffered over his career which have meant that he just cracked 100.0 career innings in the past week. Frustrating players are identified as such because they have more potential than they seem to be able to show on a consistent basis, and I don’t really have much reason to think that Fields will shed that label any time soon. So let’s talk about the players we brought in!

Robinson has been a top ten prospect for a couple of years for the Dodgers, though their system has been in poor shape for a little while. He’s one of the rare guys who picked up switch-hitting as a pro and actually managed to stick with it and become proficient. In the PCL this season, he’s hit .293/.375/.563 for the Albuquerque Isotopes with twenty-six home runs (and somehow only nine doubles). There are some issues surrounding this, such as Albuquerque boasting a 153 HR factor for right-handers and a 127 factor for left-handers, but while he’s slugged .585 at home, he’s a good .537 on the road, and about twenty-five points of that are tied up in average alone. Factor in the weirdness of the Pacific Coast League this year as you will, since it’s turned into quite the hitting league this year. What I really like about him, however, is that he pulled a Wlad Balentien by abruptly going from thirty walks a season to sixty to seventy. He still strikes out a lot, but the fact that he’s suddenly capable of drawing a walk makes me hopeful that the power he’s showing is usable. On the field, he’s got good wheels (has been around 40 steals the previous two years, though he only has eight this season) and could easily take over in center field if the need arises. His arm isn’t great, but all things considered, that’s probably his worst tool and center fielders have survived with weak arms. John Sickels also likes him a bit. I’m terrible with player comps, but I could see his best-case scenario being something like a lesser, switch-hitting Mike Cameron. Robinson probably wouldn’t be regarded as an elite prospect, but he’s still very talented and could compete for a spot opening next season.

Chiang is not so hot a prospect, but still interesting on his own merits. He’s a former infielder who was prone to a few too many mental errors and got shifted to the outfield in the 2009 season. The arm has been sufficient enough to get him playing time in right field. The Red Sox had him repeat double-A this year after he hit .260/.312/.420 for Portland last season, and he’s responded by posting a .338/.399/.647 line with a .431 wOBA, with better power numbers in less than three-quarters of the at-bats. He doesn’t walk much, and would probably top out about forty, but he doesn’t strike out much either and wouldn’t be one of the guys we see as risking 100+ Ks a season, probably more like eighty. Chiang is much better against right-handers, with an OPS differential of about .225, though that’s nothing unusual. Since he’s repeating a level and doesn’t get rave reviews for his on-field work, he’s sort of a lower-end, B-level prospect, a few steps below where Robinson is at. Considering we have Peguero and Chavez and others hanging about in the high minors, Chiang may be more interesting for the competition he provides than for anything extraordinary in his toolbox.

All-in-all, I’d say this is a win for the M’s, far better than what was initially coming down the wire, which was some backup catcher coming our way. I wouldn’t say either of these guys is a guy that I’m going to pencil in as the anything of the future, though Robinson has good odds on seeing some time down the road. For what may end up as a rental for the Red Sox (and whatever it is that Fields is), this is a pretty darned good return.

Comments

120 Responses to “Bedard, Fields Go in Three-Way Deal, M’s Get OFs Chiang and Robinson”

  1. Liam on August 2nd, 2011 10:43 am

    General Managers should be judged on whether they get their team into the playoffs, not on some regular season wins. You don’t get a trophy for winning 93 games in back to back season.

  2. dantheman on August 2nd, 2011 10:52 am

    The attendance figures are very important and really alarming for the Mariners because the reduction in revenue will impact the amount the team is willing to spend, which will then likely reduce the quality of the team, which will then further reduce attendance. The cycle will continue to spiral downward. Secondarily, it will impact television viewership which can then affect the size of television contracts. The Mariners front office should be more than a little concerned.

  3. PinedaExpress on August 2nd, 2011 10:54 am

    I would submit that judging the performance of a GM by any criteria other than wins at the major league level fundamentally fails to take into account that the ultimate goal of every aspect of a GM’s job is to produce wins at the major league level.

    I don’t disagree with the premise, but find it hard to hold everything against Jack based upon the cards he was dealt to start with. If this were the NFL, you can honestly expect radical changes and swings in W/L record. Baseball by nature is a building process.

    There are no prizes for last place teams that produce the most position players from their farm system.

    No there’s not. There is however the prize of not having to go out in the free agent market and overspend on players and give up draft picks, and that does have some value. You look at good franchises and they all manage to produce good players from thier systems each year. The Braves in the last two years have managed to produce, Freeman, Hayward, Kimbrel and Venters. If you’re not producing those guys from within you have to go out on the active market and get them, and thats a good deal of what has led this franchise to where it was at the end of the Bavasi regime.

  4. dantheman on August 2nd, 2011 11:01 am

    I was going to say that I don’t think we have to worry about the Mariners going out in the free agent market and overspending. Then I thought of Figgins, so good point.

  5. gwangung on August 2nd, 2011 12:34 pm

    I don’t disagree with the premise, but find it hard to hold everything against Jack based upon the cards he was dealt to start with.

    I think it’s pertinent to point out that you give more time to folks, depending on circumstances. Rich farm system, decent big league team? I can’t bitch if they get fired after two bad years. Bad big league team, good farm system? They have to get longer than that. Bad big league team, bad farm system? I’d find it incredible to get rid of them after only three years, particularly since filling in on the free agent level means overspending.

    If you’re building from within, you’d have to take at least three years even with a good farm system, IMO, much longer if you don’t.

  6. eponymous coward on August 2nd, 2011 1:25 pm

    If you’re building from within, you’d have to take at least three years even with a good farm system, IMO, much longer if you don’t.

    MUCH longer? How much longer?

    To put this another way: would you care to guess how many 90-loss seasons Billy Beane has as a general manager? That would be zero (though he might pull that one off this year if the A’s don’t pick it up a bit).

    I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of wildly successful GMs who spend a lot of time losing 90-100 games, outside of fringe cases (like when Branch Rickey went to the 1950’s Pirates, who were legitimately awful, far worse than the Mariners were). If Jack Zduriencik’s going to be one of the game’s best GMs, there’s not a lot of time left to show it.

    I’m not ready to fire the guy based on 2011 so far (it’s not all the way in the books, either- I could see this team crawling back to not being a joke, if not an actual .500 record), but I don’t think you can look at how 2010 and 2011 went (so far, in the case of 2011) and be happy at where the franchise is at yet, either. “Better than Bavasi” is not the same as “good enough”. My take is that we’ll see where we are come October, and go from there… and now that the last of the infamous Bavasi contracts are gone, “Bill Bavasi screwed us, and we love Jack’s process” is no longer a valid excuse come 2012. It’s time to start seeing results, not just process. If he can’t put a decent team on the field for $85 million next year, you have to question his ability as a GM.

  7. dantheman on August 2nd, 2011 2:47 pm

    All excellent points.

    The Mariners are on pace to score 535 runs, just 22 more than last year (less than 1 more run a week compared to last year). Which means, of course, that no improvement in the offense has been achieved despite the fact that the offense was historically bad last year. It is a little disturbing that so little was done to address such a glaring weakness.

  8. eponymous coward on August 2nd, 2011 4:24 pm

    It is a little disturbing that so little was done to address such a glaring weakness.

    A fair amount was done- the Mariners have added a couple of wins above replacement on offense if you prorate (remember, scoring is down league-wide).

    How exactly was Zduriencik supposed to know “oh, this is the year Ichiro gets old and Guti goes from kinda off at the plate to complete garbage”, though? Crystal ball? I get that we need to have a high standard if we’re going to think that the dude is the best GM’ed that ever GM’ed, but there’s “high standard” and “impossible standard”.

    FWIW, Smoak is pretty close to his preseason projections, so we shouldn’t be shocked that he ain’t the Great White Hope at 1B yet (Carp’s all of 6 months older, FWIW). Brendan Ryan has done what we should have expected, Olivo too, the real problem is Figgins going in the tank, Smoak not taking a step forward, LF being a mess between the Condor and Peguero, and Ichiro and Guti. We wouldn’t be GOOD if Ichiro and Guti were hitting like the back of their baseball cards, but we’d be OK, not complete crap.

    I think that what Zduriencik has tried for is “let’s bring in interesting players with bats and see what we have here until October, and then I can figure out what I need in the offseason, when I’ll have about $15 million to fill in holes”. It’s got something to commend it as a strategy, especially given that the OF may not have ANY long-term answers past 2012, if Guti doesn’t bounce back (I can’t see Ichiro playing any more as a M if 2012 is as bad as 2011- I wouldn’t be shocked if he walked after 2011, to be honest). It’s not an ideal situation, but I think Jack would be the first person to tell you any year where you lose more than you win at the major league level isn’t really successful, even if you develop some kids.

  9. gwangung on August 2nd, 2011 5:52 pm

    MUCH longer? How much longer?

    Legitimate question.

    But if you have an accurate assessment of the farm system and there’s nothing there, then you have to figure it takes 3-5 years for the very first of your draft picks to work through the system—we’re not even talking about the second year of draft picks.

  10. dantheman on August 2nd, 2011 5:54 pm

    “A fair amount was done”.

    We’ll just have to disagree. Nowhere near enough was done and that was painfully obvious before the season ever started. It became more obvious every week. The lack of offense is hardly a surprise.

    How is any GM on any team supposed to know when a player is going to under-perform? The question is how you deal with it. That’s the difference between winning teams and losing teams, and GMs who are “wizards” and those who aren’t.

  11. StatBoy on August 2nd, 2011 10:32 pm

    dantheman,

    Be specific. What moves should Jack have made last offseason or in the past 3 years that would have made the 2011 Mariners into a playoff team? The only poor move you ever cite to is Figgins, but that was universally hailed as excellent value at the time, so looks like more results-oriented thinking from you.

    Your question of “how you deal with it” is ridiculous. You deal with players underperforming by having other players in the system ready to step up. Ackley is the first position player to come through the system and stick in the bigs in Jack’s 3 years at the helm.

    That is ridiculous. Its obvious why the Mariners suck, they would suck if Theo Epstein was the GM for the last 3 years.

  12. dantheman on August 2nd, 2011 11:10 pm

    Well, if you take the position (as you do) that the Mariners “suck” and that their GM for the past 3 years has absolutely zero responsibility for that, I’m not sure there’s anything I can say which you would find helpful, let alone convincing. I would point out that some teams actually make acquisitions (free agent signings, trades) beyond just bringing players up from the minor leagues. Start by looking at Jack Z’s acquisitions. Which ones exemplify his abilities as a “wizard”?

    Yes, I plead guilty to being results oriented. That is how you judge someone’s performance. By results. For a GM the goal is wins. So far the results are not encouraging.

  13. gwangung on August 2nd, 2011 11:51 pm

    I would point out that some teams actually make acquisitions (free agent signings, trades) beyond just bringing players up from the minor leagues.

    And I would point out that these are areas where GMs do not hold as much control as they do with their farm system. (And for cases such as Guitierez and Ichiro when they underperform, I would submit the preferred method is indeed the farm system.)

    Yes, I plead guilty to being results oriented. That is how you judge someone’s performance. By results. For a GM the goal is wins. So far the results are not encouraging.

    And I would submit that you are not evaluating it effectively or in the correct time frame if you are restricting to the past two and a half years.

    Come, come. We have REPEATEDLY heard that the main way for sustained success is to build a HOME GROWN nucleus of talented, cost controlled players. You are not doing that via free agency; you can only have limited amount of success doing that via trades because you have to have raw material to trade with—which, by the way, has to come from your entire baseball system–and for a bad team, that means pretty much your farm system.

    I will argue that your orientation is not particularly well thought out nor are you being patient enough for the strategy to have time to come to fruition.

  14. dantheman on August 3rd, 2011 7:30 am

    “Come, come. We have REPEATEDLY heard that the main way for sustained success is to build a HOME GROWN nucleus of talented, cost controlled players.”

    This is your argument? People never repeat things that aren’t true so it must be correct. You might want to ask the fans in Kansas City or Pittsburgh (yes, finally, after 19 years, it’s working!! – we finally have a .500 baseball team!).

    I think one of the best things that Bill James brought to baseball is the idea that just because we have “REPEATEDLY heard” something, it pays to actually do the research. Earlier, you challenged the statement that few teams have done as bad as the Mariners with their revenue. What did the research show? No team with the Mariners’ revenue has done as bad as the Mariners in the past 3 years. “Facts are stubborn things”. J. Adams.

    “I will argue that your orientation is not particularly well thought out”

    It is much more persuasive to use facts to show why something is “not well thought out” than to just attach a pejorative label. It tends to make one believe you couldn’t construct a counter-argument.

  15. dantheman on August 3rd, 2011 8:08 am

    By the way, I’m still waiting to learn which of Jack Z’s moves qualify him for “wizard” status.

  16. PinedaExpress on August 3rd, 2011 10:08 am

    By the way, I’m still waiting to learn which of Jack Z’s moves qualify him for “wizard” status.

    I realize this wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll point out solid moves. I certainly don’t think he’s a wizard by any stretch, but he is playing to his strength and developing the system in that mold.

    I think you can make a strong arguement that Putz/White/Valbuena for Guti/Vargas/Carp has to be seen as a very solid move. The luster is off it a bit this year due to Guti’s struggles with health, but Putz has been through three teams since that deal was made. Vargas has been a cost controlled SP for the last three years, and has been fairly effective.

    I’d argue his handling of the Cliff Lee deals, on both sides show a very nice understanding of what a good GM does. He took some assets on the minor league level, turned them into Cliff Lee, then turned Lee into Smoak, Lueke, Blevin and Laffey all of whom are cost controlled and on your major league roster.

    Drafting Ackley was seen as a no-brainer, Franklin, Seager and Walker were not. Walker at this point has exceeded expectations, he’s not at the major league level but he’s well ahead of where the other projections for him were thought the be.

    Sure there have been some negative moves, especially with 100% hindsight. That’s the intrinsic flaw with results based analysis, its looking at everything that HAS happened, and doesn’t tell you anything about where you’re going. There has to be a balance to judge how someone, like Jack, has done in thier roles.

  17. eponymous coward on August 3rd, 2011 10:19 am

    But if you have an accurate assessment of the farm system and there’s nothing there, then you have to figure it takes 3-5 years for the very first of your draft picks to work through the system—we’re not even talking about the second year of draft picks.

    Except the Mariners had, at the time Zduriencik came in, two HOF-caliber talents (King Felix and Ichiro).

    How many players have the Pirates had on their roster the last 10 years that can perform at that level? The Royals? Have either of those teams had the payroll flexibility the M’s have had?

    I would buy the idea that “Oh, Zduriencik can’t be held accountable for anything that happens because Bill Bavasi was so awful” if he really WAS coming into a team that had nothing in terms of good players- think 1930’s-1940’s Phillies, 1950’s Pirates or early 60’s Mets. But Felix and Ichiro aren’t nothing. Adrian Beltre in 2009 wasn’t nothing. Cliff Lee in 2010 wasn’t nothing. And 85 million in payroll isn’t nothing.

    The thing is, we can do the “well, the decision that led to _________ had good process, but we just got unlucky” for a lot of things:

    – Silva for Bradley
    – Jack Cust
    – Cedeno and Clement for Snell and Wilson
    – Griffey
    – Kotchman
    – League for Morrow
    – and so on, and so on

    At some point, though, when does “unlucky” need to be replaced with “maybe our process isn’t as good as we think it is, and we’d get better results if we refined our process?”

    (I also have to say I don’t think Wedge is any improvement over Wakamatsu as a manager, in terms of doing the job that a manager does, like filling out the lineup card and making playing t- and if Zduriencik is going to be given a 5 year leash on his GM record, it was garbage that Wakamatsu got a grand total of 3 months of sub-.500 ball before he was told to hit the road.)

  18. eponymous coward on August 3rd, 2011 10:38 am

    PinedaExpress, that’s a really good summary of good reasons why we shouldn’t be firing up the torches and gathering pitchforks if Zrduriencik is the GM in 2012. I think there have been questionable moves too, but on balance, the organization is better off than is was in October 2008.

    That being said, I think the jury is still out on whether “better” is “good enough to contend in the AL West” in the near future… and if it’s not, then that’s a problem.

  19. PinedaExpress on August 3rd, 2011 11:07 am

    I think one of the reasons that Figgins is brought up so much is that the error on him is one that is hamstringing this franchise in the longer run. League/Morrow for me is a toss up, I get why some people hate it but it isn’t a clear negative deal. Kotchman, Griffey, Cust are all low money, short term moves. They’re actually the types of moves that if I were trying to build up a farm system I would look to make. For as bad as Kotchman was, that was the same gamble that worked out with Branyan the year before.

    That being said, I think the jury is still out on whether “better” is “good enough to contend in the AL West” in the near future… and if it’s not, then that’s a problem.

    And this is the biggest concern. The Angels will not take huge steps back, and the Rangers are showing that they’re willing to do what it takes to be contenders. The bar continues to be raised.

  20. dantheman on August 3rd, 2011 1:01 pm

    “I also have to say I don’t think Wedge is any improvement over Wakamatsu as a manager, in terms of doing the job that a manager does, like filling out the lineup card and making playing t- and if Zduriencik is going to be given a 5 year leash on his GM record, it was garbage that Wakamatsu got a grand total of 3 months of sub-.500 ball before he was told to hit the road.”

    Two things. First, I’m often surprised at Wedge’s use of personnel. How do you have a pitcher on the staff who goes weeks – literally weeks – without pitching at all?

    Second, I’m also surprised that Wakamatsu was thrown overboard so quickly. Either the initial decision to hire him was a terrible mistake or someone pressed the panic button. I will say that Jack Z has lots of company when it comes to bad managerial hiring decisions (and it may well be that Chuck and Howard are the ones who call those shots).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.