This Debate Is Preposterous

And Dr. D is getting wayyyyy too ticked off about it :- )


HOT SEAT:  The Times hanging on every Erasmo Ramirez pitch as though he were an NPB import trying to show who he was.

DR D, in AUDIO MODE:  The human mind is a funny thing.  We have a wonderful capacity to re-set.  We have the ability to completely forget the problems of yesterday, and simply move on starting with a blank piece of paper.

This can be helpful, say, when you've caught your wife having an affair and she apologizes by bringing home a red negligee.  It's not as helpful when you have a young kid who is a demonstrated 1+ BB pitcher with three strikeout pitches, and you forget that he's good.

The Times, weirdly, is brushing off Ramirez' 2012 as a short sample.  My unrehearsed reaction to that?  "Yeah, Carter Capps only threw 99 MPH a few times too.  But it doesn't mean he has to throw 99 for another two years before we get it."

Ramirez demonstrated his plus-plus command and his 1+ BB rates.  You've got a pitcher who walks 1+ guys, the only question you've got left is whether he can put guys away with two strikes.  Blake Beavan was the counterexample.  Erasmo Ramirez is the very opposite end of that spectrum.

If your wonderful human capacity to forget has blanked your mind on Erasmo Ramirez, here are two quick SSI reads:

With Carter Capps, it's not about 40 saves before you understand the situation.  It's about knowing what a sidearm, easy 99 MPH means.

With Erasmo, it's not about 30 more Erasmo starts, to create a "large sample."  It's about understanding where that 1+ BB is coming from, and understanding the knockout weapons that he has to go with them.

This debate is absurd.  It's contrary to reason.  It's nonsensical.  It has no intelligible meaning.  The debate is a parody of itself.  You had a young starter come up and show you that he's terrific, and now you kick him to the curb over a 100 ERA+ meatball who might or might not be past his surgery.

The process here is wrong.  It's not often we say that.


Klat Categories: 


ghost's picture


The Mariners are in fact the stupidest organization in major league baseball...even now.


E-Ram said in an interview after the game he was throwing his slider to bust lefties inside and it wasn't breaking, just flattening out and staying over the middle of the plate. Said he was glad they stayed in the park. He pitched out of jams, which while you don't want to be in one in the first place it's good he can show he knows how to limit damage and get out of the inning.


Either the decision maker lacks wisdom and intelligence, or the reasons being communicated for the decision are not the real reasons.

I have no interest in trying to talk you out of your stance since I agree with you stance as stated, but Garland has not yet made the team instead of Erasmo, and I do not believe the criteria for the judgement have been communicated publicly. The discussion about M's decision making is no more forthright than Obama's state of the union or a John Boehner public statement about taxes. All these statements are political, at best designed to persuade, usually to distract -- these are no the spending cuts you are looking for -- and certainly not to open thoughtful debate.

So why would Jack consider bringing in Garland in the first place?

1) He doesn't give pitchers time in the bigs until they demonstrate consistency with the approach that they will implement in the bigs -- I believe this is why Beavan and Ramirez have gotten time in the bigs and Walker, Paxton, and Hultzen have not yet. While this doesn't explain Garland over Ramirez, it does significantly shorten the list of options that Jack appears ready to rely on in 2013.

2) This means Jack's list of candidates for the rotation that he trusts today is short. And he can't trust Iwakuma, Ramirez, Maurer, and Beavan to put up 200+ innings this year. So he would like options that he can trust more than Paxton, Hultzen, and Walker. That is why Maurer is still around, but he can't be trusted for big innings either. His delayed ascent as a gold plated prospect is a result of injury not talent (last year was the first fully healthy year he has had as a Mariner, I believe).

3) The young ones have options, Garland doesn't. Jack needs 7 or 8 options he can trust to throw strikes and get outs as MLB starters, because outside of Felix and Saunders, no one has a track record for tossing 200+ innings. What if Garland is his 6th or 7th best option, but option #5 (say Ramirez for arguments sake) can come up in June when someone has shoulder soreness but Garland cannot. If he goes with Ramirez in April and it is Ramirez that gets a sore shoulder, he can't stash Garland in Tacoma to be called up in June. This means he needs to be able to bank on Hultzen, Maurer, or Paxton being ready when a pitcher goes down -- what if they are not?

Me, I roll the dice that by June, I have a pitcher that looks ready to try the big leagues on for size. In fact, I think this is what Jack will decide as well, but we'll see.


Garland does have some things to recommend him (if you look at his splits, he allows a .750ish OPS in most categories, which indicates that he rarely gives batters an opening to demolish him), but we also can't just assume Erasmo will out pitch him out of the gate. Consider Felix Hernandez's 2nd season after obliterating the AL in his first, or check out what Juan Nicasio did for the Rockies last season before getting hurt after a 2011 in which he outperformed Erasmo.

It is not unreasonable for Wedge to want more than 2 out of his 5 starring pitchers to have more than 200 ML innings pitched. It is not unreasonable to believe that Jon Garland or even Blake Beavan can be more valuable to the club early in the season because they have demonstrated the ability to adjust to the adjustments that Major League players make while Erasmo Ramirez needs to be told to not always throw strikes. Ramirez may well out pitch both, but what if last year's out performance of his minor league numbers was due to a lack of scouting on him? If he's a guy who will have an ERA around 4 while give up 9+ hits per 9, then he's not such a big improvement on Garland after all, and Garland might give the Mariners a 1% better chance to win this year, who knows.


... that being human BIAS.  :- ) As when fear overrides logic.  My worry is that Zduriencik and Wedge are suddenly losing their nerve.

It's one thing to want to make the safe play.  It's another thing when you fold a winning hand because you're panicking at the thought of an inside straight draw.  Erasmo is the percentage play.


But, absolutely.  Very possible that something is being lost in the translation ... I suspect that you and I would agree that SOMETHING is being misconstrued there.


I certainly hope so.  Erasmo shouldn't be competing for a job on any level.  This is one of those situations in which 12 IP in Arizona should not overturn the things we saw from Erasmo in 2012; I'm sure you agree with the level of weight that should (not) be put on Erasmo's spring.  You might as well start Jesus Montero or Tom Wilhelmsen from scratch this March...

If Erasmo is in spring training for ANY reason other than to show that he still has the clockwork mechanics, and normal velocity, then the M's bias toward "proven" MLB(TM) production is overriding their sense of reason.


Very interesting post, as always, Dr. K.


Dr K, your point about Z being nervous about #2, maybe even #3, and therefore wanting extra stability at #4-5, that's a point with legs.

Whether Jon Garland provides more risk avoidance than Erasmo Ramirez is another question.  I can certainly empathize with the idea that, standing 3' away from either of them on the grass, that Garland would FEEL less risky.  From a coolly detached standpoint, I'll argue that the real gamble is the other way.

Gimme the roto team with Erasmo 2013, over the one with Garland, any day.  But down on the grass I'm sure it doesn't feel like that.


You've pointed this factor out several times, and it's one of the best light bulbs you've installed here.  Keep reminding us.


G-Money has pointed out that other org's don't have this bias -- Oakland with Gio, LA with Kershaw, etc.  But obviously the M's do like for their pitchers to be near-finished products.

Maurer does seem to be that -- a near-finished product, from an execution standpoint -- and Erasmo is OBVIOUSLY that.  We'll see where it gets them.


I like that insight too. Not sure I agree with it, assuming it is a correct assessment of the M's decision making, but it is defensible.


but I don't run the team. As I said to Mo, if I run the team Garland isn't even in camp, but maybe that is foolish of me.


...but why didn't they trade a single blue chip prospect this Winter if that were true? You telling me they couldn't have done better than Garland with a trade of Paxton and Franklin, two players that aren't going to be on the big league roster?


The organization could be losing it's nerve, or frankly never had any. That makes more sense to me. The perplexing and confusing decision making is a sign of organizational disfunction.


Are the inconsistencies apparent or real? Will there a resolution of the situation compatible with design currents of the franchise, or is all this indicative of panic or confusion? A couple of months should make things clearer.


...but, there is still another explanation, and most everyone isn't going to like it. Jack Zduriencik, for all of his baseball acumen has an aspect to him that we all just kind of gloss over, and that is that he is also a business man. Sometimes Jack has to approach a situation from the business, and it will make ZERO sense to those of us who look at the organization as purely a baseball team. Believe me, even if Jack is doing something from a business approach, he is doing it with the best interest of the team in his heart.

Out of pure dumb luck I've come across a piece of intel that I would love to write about and share with everyone, but I can't. I don't mean to be smarmy, I just can't share it right now.


Rob's picture


Except to be smarmy? ;) Incidently, is this the same bit of 'news' you referenced in the shoutbox a couple days back, or is this new, more juicy news?



We have lots of pitchers that "look ready to try the big leagues on for size." That's Doc's point. By your reasoning, The Cubs should have kept Greg Maddux down in he gave up a WHIP of 1.6, H/9 of 10.5, 4.3 BB's with 5.8 K's in his age 21 first go-around.

The next year he was at 1.2, 8.3, 2.9 & 5.1.

Then he became Greg Maddux. He came up about the same age as ERAM, btw. In 156 AAA innings, he gave up 8.3 hits/9 with 2.4 BB's and 5.0 K's. Man, ERam was way better than that as a major leaguer last year.

OK, I know...he's no Mad Dog.

But he's better than Garland...and has proved it.

If Morse and Morales are one year guys, we can hardly stand 10-13 Garland starts....when there are a BUNCH of better guys in AAA.

The fact that this thing has legs probably means that there is some sort of decent chance it happens. There is no way to defend it.

Garland was last better than ERam is right now in '05.

So there you go.



With what I know, I would start Erasmo and wouldn't have invited Garland to camp, but what I know is extremely limited compared to Jack and Eric. Does that make them right? Of course not, my only point was dismissing the decisions of others as crazy is a great recipe for stagnating and never learning anything new. I realize that Doc wasn't dismissing Jack and Eric, that is not his stye, but the level of frustration was unusual for Doc. So I just wondered to myself, are there reasons, rather than biases, that could explain the decision making? Basically, the whole story doesn't make sense to me, so I presumed I was missing something and hypothesized what it might be, that is all.


I grok'ked that first time 'round, but thanks for the PSA.

Your intent to get out to the control truck, check the monitors and cameras and replay angles that we hadn't yet looked at, that's the very spirit of SSI.  

And by the way, I feel a little less shrill, having seen the play from the reverse angle.  OOmmmmmmmmmm... .


This is really what we've learned from SSI. If things don't make any sense, it's somewhat likely that it's because we don't have all the information that the guys making the decisions have. Last year, we lamented Iwakuma's relegation to the bench early in the season but we didn't know (as Baker did know) that it was taking the guy three days to recover from throwing a couple of ST innings. There was literaly no way he could have started coming out of ST. If we had know what the club's coaches and trainers knew at the time, we would not have been so incredulous. And it appears that the club made the right call.

I don't know what is driving the "safe vets on one year contracts" thing in 2013 but something is. Risk aversion, talent readiness evaluation..something.


You bring in vets like Garland and Bonderman on minor league contracts, because in February you cannot be sure that everyone you "expect" in your rotation will be healthy. You also do not know in February just how your prospects will perform in the new year.

Noesi was the organization pick last year and performed well enough to get a spot out of ST. This year, he is apparently attempting to fix some of last year's problems and at the moment is a complete train wreck.

There was no guarantee that Hultzen or Paxton or Maurer (or Erasmo or Beavan) was going to impress in ST. So, you bring in extra bodies, "in case" you need them.

But, when you have a full rotation performing up to expectation ... your "stop loss" guys should not leap over them simply because they have multiple years of being mediocre.

My sense of things is Wedge (not Z) is likely the guy who wants Garland ... because my view of Wedge from early on is that he prefers any body that makes WEDGE's job easier. With Garland, Wedge just pencils in the name and any failure is on Garland - he's a vet, after all. But, if a Beavan or Erasmo or Noesi runs into trouble, it become's Wedge's job to figure out a solution to the problem.

I have no direct knowledge and admit this is pure speculation ... but my sense is that Wedge would rather have 4 vets and one prospect, simply because it means less work for Wedge than 3 vets and 2.


FWIW, Divish guesses today on the radio that Ramirez and Beavan make the club; Garland gets released to try it with another team and Bonderman takes a AAA Tacoma assignment. That would be fine with me.


ghost's picture


Here's to hoping that Baker is just too close to the field on this one and is hearing Wedge heap praise on Garland to do him a favor when he tries with other clubs.


In that a Garland over ERam decision isn't "crazy" in hte real sense. It's somewhere in the neighborhood, however. :)

Your idea as ERam as the fallback position, which doesn't exist with Garland, is interesting. But were that Z & W's play, here, I wouldn't understand that either. Why wouldn't you fallback position on an ERam collapse just be Maurer or Hultzen? By then you would have probably saved a year with them.

I think it was Robert E. Lee that once said an army was a beautiful thing and a commander had to be careful about being reluctant to use that beautiful thing for what it was designed for. That's a liberal paraphrase, I'm sure.

We have built this beautiful thing of young talent and now we seem reluctant to roll it out into battle where some of it might be destroyed. Perhaps ERam implodes this won't be due to the fact that he didn't get 15 more AAA starts. On that, I am sure.

Ditto Hultzen, Maurer, Romero, etc.

Almost all young guys have some early struggles. Willie Mays went o'fer 24, or some such thing. I mentioned Maddux above. Harper had stretches of them last year. Man, it is part of the learning process. But that process exists whether a player is 22 or 25.

So roll them out early.

I appreciate your attempt to find a rational in the Garland over ERam issue. And perhaps the issue is all ours and not really something Wedge is contemplating. But if that is so, why wouldn't he just say, "Man, I'm really excited to see ERam in game 4! The kid looks great!"

I am quite sure we have the best stable of young starter-type arms in the game. Young arms aren't collectables, however. Their use isn't in polishing them and sitting them on the shelf for all to admire. Their true use is in trotting them out in Safeco and lfinding out what they've got. Tacoma is a nice place. But basically, it don't mean diddly in the development of a pitcher.

Sorry if I came across to aggressive in the last post. I do realize you had said you wouldn't walk down the Garland path were you the GM.



bsr's picture


Organizational DNA from the top (JAPAN) down is risk averse in the worst way. Like a tight-passive poker player who bleeds to death from the blinds. It's like Doc says, when they (ownership) are trying to win...we'll know it. (You think it's Schneider and Carroll making the call on the last week of Hawks signings? Mr. Allen is the one cutting the checks.)

Here's what I don't get. If you throw E-Ram and Maurer out there, and one or both implode, and you've lost Jon Friggin Garland forever by cutting him in there not some other warmed over Vet you could trade one of your bajillion prospects for on short notice? Or give Hoss Millwood a call down on the ranch? Is this just not realistic?

Is JZ truly on the hot seat and needs .500 or bust? That's what I've always assumed about this year. Maybe that's the simplest explanation. Sigh. Can't wait to follow our epic quest for 82 wins.

Let's hope the kids break out and force their hands :)


After Garland's last interview ("There are 29 other teams") vs. Erasmo's very cool quotes today (seriosly , check Baker's interview with him, it warms your heart), you have no choice but to root for Erasmo.


bsr's picture


Good read. Erasmo just sounds like a sharp guy (as folks around here have been saying).

Now Baker is talking about Garland needing a month to get up to game speed...accepting a couple bombs in April.

When you get down to it, seems like the team just doesn't agree with the good Doctor here on Erasmo's prognosis in 2013. The most charitable scenario is they want his 180 IP running into Sept/Oct. But then why the almost religious mantra about Garland's amazing 200 IP ability...sure doesn't sound like a stopgap.


Bonderman and Garland both have dismal sound bites coming out of their mouths. 'If this doesn't work out, there are 29 other teams' - Garlands quote as you say. Bonderman's was something like, 'Well I've proven to myself I can still get big leaguers out. If they send me down to the minors, that's the business. I could just go home for the season instead, no big woop'

These are guys that made their millions and are making an effort to come back, but the burning desire to compete, the love for the game, it is not there. What's this Wedge is spouting about competition? Sounding more and more like lip service.


...that is moldy and smelly with age. It is also wrong. Very wrong. Folks need to hop off of that "woe is me, my team is the worst team in the history of baseball" bandwagon because that is a ride that goes nowhere. Seriously, "not trying to win" is a sentiment that just like Chone Figgins, needs to go away.


bsr's picture


It's shorthand oversimplification obviously. We all understand it as such. Maybe we are just snake bitten and it's going to turn around soon. Given total lack of successful RESULTS with the Ms...we fans are forced to become expert PROCESS watchers to have anything hopeful to root for. So when we see signs of a seemingly flawed is extra distressing.

I can appreciate that things look different at field level vs on the net. Hoping your secret scoop will see daylight're killing us here =D


However, let me give a personal example of why it resonates with me fairly deeply.

In high school, I took up wrestling because I loved boxing with my brother, watching UFC as a kid and playing soccer. So physically, I was in great shape and used to athletics. I wasn't truly gifted physically until high school when I discovered that there were only a handful of seniors who were physically stronger than myself as a freshman. My high school had 1100 students my freshman year.

After a year of getting turned into burger by the team and coaches, I arrived in wrestling camp my sophomore year ready to compete, at least I thought. You know what I discovered? I wasn't mean enough. I was stronger than all but our returning AAA state champs, and I was better at takedowns and takedown defense than literally all but two of my teammates. I never got higher than 2nd string JV, and I wasn't behind anyone of note.

What I needed to be doing was IMPOSING MY WILL on my teammates ruthlessly and wihout consideration for their well-being or athletic careers. I didn't understand that it was a fight to total submission; I thought it was a friendly athletic exercise.

If I had gone on a tear, and broken arms, ribs and strained my teammates' will to compete with me, I would have been varsity easily. I'm not exaggerating, I was that good physically and technically, winning regional freestyle and takedown tournaments. I beleive that it was simply my lack ofanimalistic, testosterone-fuelled will to crush my enemies, see them driven before me and hear the lamentation of their women that did me in. I was too 'Yin'd' and not enough 'Yang'd'. I'm better now, but still not where I need to be, and that's after years of working to remedy the situation.

The M's are in PRECISELY the same situation, with major economic and geographic advantages over their opponents. The problem is,they don't go for the throat EVER. They think it's a friendly athletic exercise that might go their way eventually. Does anyone think that approach will work?

THAT is what I think people mean when they say the M's don't want to win. Of course they are high-powered executives, likely better at their jobs than any of us will ever be at ours. But relative to their true peers, like those across the street, they are woefully inadequate in Yang.


bsr's picture


+++ great story...thanks for sharing :) I think Z and Wedge have the requisite t-count to compete hard...the Ms weak link has always been ownership (and HowieChuck to an extent...but they are just the foot soldiers to the check writers). Look at our majority absentee maker of cutesy family fun shock that the team is run the way they are. The issue is fundamentally financial and business based. Anyway enough pessimism...let's hope Z has the magic touch to overcome his constraints...starting right about now!


Rob's picture


I still don't see the competition being Garland vs. Ramirez. I really think it's two separate battles: Garland vs. Bonderman, Beavan vs. Ramirez. I agree with the "veteran insurance" angle being put forth, but it's only for 1 spot, not two; hence, Gar vs. Bond. I think it is convoluting it to express it any other way.

I get that there are two spots and 4 guys, but I don't actually believe the roles are completely fungible in the minds of the brass. (For ex. there is NO way Gar and Bond both make the team. It's basically, "Can one of the old guys stick? Great. It's one young guy instead of two."


I do love that we are getting all worked up about the 5th/6th starter and 5th/6th outfielder roster battles.

Certainly Wells vs. Bay has a lot less overall impact than Figgins over Seager. And how many, many, many years were we just looking for a live body to fill that fifth starter roll?

I love it when the biggest debates of camp are our 24th and 25th roster spots. Love it.

- Ben.


True, 'dat. The club that breaks camp in 2013 is going to be a LOT better than the one that broke camp in 2012. Morse over Ichiro in RF. Seagar over Figgins at 3B. Montero over Olivo at C and Morales over Montero at DH. Garland over Noesi at SP. Those are all pretty big upgrades. Add in Capps over Kelly and Pryor over Delabar and this team is markedly improved.


ghost's picture


Smoak over himself, Saunders over himself, Ackley over himself, Andino over Kawasaki, Ibanez over Peguero, Perez over the struggling version of Iwakuma, and Gutierrez back to full health.

Those are a LOT of upgrades.


Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <i> <b> <img> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <div> <strong> <p> <br> <u>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.


Please log in or create an account to post shouts.
GLSThere are other GMs not named Beane that understand roster construction. We had Pat Gillick once upon a time. He understood roster contruction pretty well. There are others out there now. I agree that Jack is probably somewhere at that median level of GM competence, and it's not like he doesn't understand how to put a roster together. But, even with today's moves, I'm hoping the organization goes in a different direction with the GM position in the offseason. I just don't see much from Jack in the way of creative thinking.1 hour 45 min ago
bsrBtw who wants to guess how much the A's payroll has increased this year vs 2013, including the deadline additions? Yep, right around $25M. What a coincidence! So now we are seeing what Billy Beane can do with a decent payroll...i.e., destroy the league.2 hours 18 min ago
bsrGLS - I agree but Billy Beane's are in short supply. If you don't have a genius played by Brad Pitt to run your team :) ... you need some extra dough! $130M is what good teams with 2 mega contracts are spending these days, so I assume that's what we need too. Given that Jack seems to be on balance about an average-ish GM. He's definitely good enough that I'd trust him to build a champion with an extra $20-30M this offseason. With an extra $0-10M...not so sure he's got the skills.2 hours 35 min ago
bsrI have no idea what the cash flows are from the ROOT deal, and when they hit the coffers and can be spent. But the national TV money by all reported accounts was $25M extra to each team starting in 2014. So the M's should have that money already. I was surprised to see when I just looked, that they actually did increase payroll $15M in 2014 (it was $85M in 2012 and 2013). My guess is they spent what they had in hand of the national TV money, maybe there were timing issues w/ the payout that didn't allow them to access the entire $25M in year 1, or maybe they spent $10M on other stuff (who knows what - minor leagues, international facilities, Safeco...). In any case I'd assume they'll get a +$10M boost to payroll this offseason right there. Plus attendance is up, that's another few million they'll have. So really they need $15-20M from somewhere else to be at the $130M competitive payroll level, hopefully it'll be ROOT money.2 hours 40 min ago
bsrLast 11 WS winners payroll (in 2013 $, adjusting for increases in avg salary): 151, 139, 120, 109, 230, 117, 178, 112, 104, 189, 69 (Marlins #2...amazing). Median is $120M, average is $140M. M's payroll is 100M this year. To be a real solid contender they need to add $20M payroll in the offseason. $30-40M would be ideal.2 hours 50 min ago
GLSbsr - the difference with the A's is that Billy Beane seems to have complete control of roster decisions and he has a very clear understanding of how to put a roster together.2 hours 51 min ago
Bat571I also have a sneaking suspicion that, right after trading Cespedes, the A's will suddenly be the favorites to sign Rusney Castillo3 hours 5 min ago
Bat571If the Ms go after Yasmani Tomas, they'll be looking at something like $70M to sign him, so the payroll does have to have some room. But I'm thinking *THE PLAN* may just allow for one big signing each year and a gradual buildup with extensions (Seager?), etc., to the TV money level we all figure the Ms can truly afford. By spacing it out they have a more predictable budget 3-4 years out, so it does make some sense. So ...., if it's the plan, I hope Tomas clears the Treasury vetting soon, so the Ms can get the lineup closer to 9 men long, rather than the 2 or even 4-5.3 hours 7 min ago
bsrWhy can't the M's succeed the way Beane and the Rays have -- they don't have $130M payrolls. Well they haven't won any titles in either place. But setting that aside, the M's have already given up on the A's/Rays approach. The $130M payroll strategy is the one they chose by adding Cano. Teams that have won on the cheap didn't have $50M tied up in two guys. Period. So hopefully 2014 will be a transition year, and they'll complete the strategy this offseason and go to war in 2015 with a full scale MLB roster.3 hours 35 min ago
bsrThe most important question for M's fans is, when will they be able to start spending the new TV money. There are zero other teams with $50M payroll tied up in two guys like us, who have an overall payroll under $130M. We are a total outlier in MLB. The math is simple, there is just no money left over if payroll stays in the $90-100M range and half of it is tied up in Cano and Felix. Get payroll up to $130M with new TV money and we are talking. Then we have a good chance to go on a multi-year run, as long as some of the young guys keep taking steps forward. I hope we hang tough this year and get into the Dice Roll Game, that would be awesome. But really next year is where we should have a chance to be very good, IF we have the cash to bolster the team.3 hours 50 min ago
rick82Moe, I was thinking the same thing! Why not put Kelly at first? At the very least, he'll get on base ahead of Zunino. But seriously, he seems to be taking the Mike Carp route, sacrificing batting average and some OBP for the power needed to play in the bigs.3 hours 57 min ago
bsrSeems pretty clear Z had $7M in 2014 money to spend at the deadline, i.e. Hart's incentive money. And that's what he spent. So my question is, do we think he made good use of $7M? Anything more was not realistic. But Price+Zobrist would have cost $7M too (but obviously along with more young talent going out the door). Would that pair, less the additional prospects lost, be better than what we got? (not losing much young talent)4 hours 21 min ago
PlawsableYork was at 3b until August and hit one HR after that as a PH. His total at catcher was 22, so I&#039;d think of it as a tie with Fisk4 hours 29 min ago
rick82Montero is in his hotel room thinking, "I had 15. What's the big deal?"4 hours 37 min ago
moethedogKelly homers again for Tacoma, BTW. He played 1 game at 1B back in the Sally League in '11. Just in case you were wondering.4 hours 40 min ago
moethedogPlaw: Earl Williams hit 33 in '75 with the Braves. NL though. But Rudy York hit 35 in '37 for the Tigers. He started 54 games a C and 40 at 3B.4 hours 45 min ago
Bat571Absolutely agree, Rick - Saunders is the key to why JackZ didn't go harder after the bigger names. If he can get back soon it will make a BIG difference.5 hours 19 min ago
Bat571Morban hits one ~418' and ends up with a triple and an RBI - but that ball was hit HARD ! But CF is 420' in the Salt Lake ballpark.5 hours 20 min ago
PlawsableI was trying to find AL record for rookie catcher HR. Searched every way I could think of then every name I could think of and the AL catchers known for HR mostly developed their power in their mid to late twenties. Carlton Fisk had 22 his rookie year, anyone with more in AL history?5 hours 42 min ago
Bat571Tacoma on CBSSports tonight. Beaven pitching with score 1-0, bases loaded, and Fields of SLC just hit one *barely* foul and then strikes out.5 hours 49 min ago