Waiting out the off season just paid off big-time!! All the GMZ naysayers who had written off the M's off season as a failure need to hit the re-evaluate button. GMZ now has veteran depth at every position.
If Saunders is coming in as a 1-year bridge guy, then the entire conversation changes. Pretty rare, as far as I recall, to get a guy like this to sign with you for a single season.
By "a guy like this" I mean a starting pitcher who:
- Throws 200 innings every year (194 x 5 the last five years)
- At a 100 ERA+
- In the American League
- Has been apparently getting a little better as time goes on, and was on a hot roll last we saw him
- In other words, doesn't have warts, isn't coming off surgery, yada yada
I don't like Saunders' .500 SLG against righties, especially with the fences coming in out there in LF. Still, he was really hot last fall ... a 58:19 control in the second half, a 2+ ERA in September, and great in the playoffs. Obviously Buck Showalter saw how hot (not lucky) he was and rode it, slamming him in there against Texas to everybody's amazement -- and having it pay off huge.
So there is the off chance -- 10%, let us say -- that Saunders has pulled a Jamie Moyer at age 31. As we recall, the M's grabbed Moyer at age 31, 32, right in the middle of Moyer's first "hot" season, and then Moyer pitched like a Hall of Famer for the next 15 years. Because the M's had body-surfed the very crest of Moyer's emergence, they had pole position and locked him up for the future.
I'd like to ask Zduriencik whether this type of thought is ever in his mind - hey, the upside scenario, he becomes Moyer, you're getting a lotto ticket into the bargain here.
Saunders will never actually pitch in the style Moyer did; Moyer had ballet-type balance and the best command in the league. Saunders would have to do it differently. But some guys get good in their 30's, is the point.
Anyway, two years would have meant committing 60 starts to Saunders - blaarrrggggh ::wipes bottom lip::. One year means committing zero to him. Okkayyyyyy.
That gives us three scenarios:
- LO - Saunders reeks, and you slam the kids in.
- MID - Saunders has a 100 ERA+, and he acts as a buffer so that you can integrate the glamor rookies on your terms.
- HI - Saunders does some kind of Jamie Moyer thing, and you reap the benefits.
So the STRATEGIC (not tactical) overview is that --- > you've got a grandmaster play by Zduriencik. We got no downside here. We win a pawn in all variations. Write down the move, screw the Bishop into the square with gusto, and hit the chess clock.
Compared to Jason Vargas, this #4 starter is pretty much a push to me. Vargas has been a little better, but Saunders did have that hot roll going at the end of 2012 which is a little intriguing. I call that a push. As compared to Kevin Millwood, he's pretty clearly a better roll of the dice than that was. (RIP Kevin and thanks man. You showed 'em how it was done, brother.)
A ONE year deal on a 100 ERA+ vet who was on a roll when last seen? No brainer. I'll take one of those every season until my funeral.
I would much rather we just give the ball to Hultzen or Paxton, or both, in mid-May. Much rather......
But this definately kicks Noesi out of the rotation and means Beavan has to fend off those two guys to stay in the rotation. I won't have to watch Noesi and that is of some value.
180 innings/100 ERA+ is something decent to have........especially if the cost is really just one year.
Upside is pretty, downside is he flames out and we are just pitching a guy we already have.
Hultzen or Paxton get to have the full Tacoma experience, for a while. I prefer to think that if they are going to be ready in July they are ready in May....
But one year of Saunders doesn't chap me in any way serious.
A decent get. Must be a bonus or option involved.
Can we cut Raul to open up the 40-man space?
One thing that being a Mariner fan has taught me is that the real LO scenario is more akin to something like:
Joe has a great Spring
Struggles badly out of the gate
Puts a couple of nice starts together
More stinkers to follow
A nice month gets sprinkled in there mid-season
A few nice starts to end the season after revealing he had mystery elbow pain earlier this year
Rinse and Repeat
It's hard to find a player on this roster that isn't playing for a contract or future job.
I love me some numbers, but there's no stat for motivation. Is it April yet?
Kelley, Noesi, Triunfel, and a non-40 roster arm for Domonic Brown, please. That would really top off the off-season. Morse, Saunders, and Brown in the outfield, with Guti rotating in against tough lefties. Felix, Kuma, Big Joe, the Eraser, and Bibbedy-Bobbedy Beaven in the rotation until Paxton and Hultzen are safely past super two. Pitchers and Catchers -- REPORT!!
But that does bring it up -- who's next for DFA? I'd sure like a trade rather than just give up Carp, or Wells, or Kelley, or even Noesi or Medina, for nada. We gotta find someone with a player that they'll give up that is worth three or four of our marginal guys. Who else is in a manager's dog house besides Brown that we might want?
My guess is...we'll finalize the Saunders signing when we finish trading Carp to the Red Sox or some other interested team that whiffed on first base help. Heck...Carp/Kelley is a pretty neat little package to offer someone for a decent prospect or active right fielder with some blemishes.
although that ws Bavasi...GMZ has yet to do that with any pitcher.
... disginations for assignment. Everyone who is currently on the 40-man roster will show up and compete. Those who don't make the cut and do not have any more options will get traded to another team for prospects. This is the baseball version of the wheel of life :)
Unless Saunders signed a minor league deal, there's still one more DFA to come to make him official, 'cause the 40-man is at 41.
Truly can't recall this much "talented" competition going into camp. Very good point.
I like the suggestion. Not sure how it would work in reality. Some would wait forever to be traded, nobody tangoing with Figgins for the minimum and no talent so far. I think DFA could be severely improved too. There may be something there with spinning the wheel.
I was leaning that way too. Still in the up scenario if we're looking to possibly keep him long term others have to go. Felix, Kuma, Erasmo, Pax, Hultz, Walker, Beaven, Saunders, Maurer (9, yeah 9!) is just too much for one rotation. In comes Carraway, Sanchez, Fernandez, etc...
Saunders one one year is very laudable. I'm having alot of trouble with a guess on the August 1st rotation though. April 1st seems easier now, but surprises could happen.
I'm going back and forth on the acquisition. It nearly guarantees that even a good spring from one of P/H/M will see them still sent out. There's always injury, trade or collapse to free a spot. Beaven and Ramirez may not be so secure, but I'd rather see both than Saunders. Oh well, depth is much better than dearth.
Can I get a wiiittttt-nesssss...
Can I get a witness... talkin' talkin' bout mah bab-eh
Right now we got
3 Erasmo (though he'll nominally be the 4)
And with any injury to Iwakuma, or whoever, you got Hultzen in next. Pretty much Zduriencik's ideal -- the BEST of the glamor arms gets the 5 spot, with the runnerup going into the on-deck circle, no rush.
You can make the argument that Saunders is Beavan, from the other side, with one more K and one more BB per 9. And maybe a homerun better every 27 innings.
Something like that.
That's why there isn't a chorus of ringing voices celebrating this deal. 10% upside is quite reasonable. Same might be said about Beavan.
But they are both better than Noesi.
Unless we're a play-off team this year, early Hultzen and Paxton sightings make more sense.
But....it remains a decent get. Not much more than that. Unless we roll 7 or 11 on him.
The thought occurred to me, and is noted on another site, in the context of the trade for Morales the acquisition of Saunders is rather interesting. If Vargas and Saunders are viewed as interchangeable (both in performance and salary), and Saunders was available to any team willing to pull the trigger, why did the Angels trade Morales for talent they could have acquired without the loss of Morales? Either (i) the premise of Vargas and Saunders being interchangeable is fundamentally flawed, (ii) the market expectations for Saunders' contract changed dramatically between December and February, or (iii) the Angels made a fundamental strategic error. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts. Did the Mariners just acquire Morales for free?
I'm just happy that the talk of Noesi in the M's rotation can stop. Saunders mitigates risk with the others in the rotation after Felix, though I'm still hopeful that the kids force their way into the rotation sooner rather than later. Ready or not, they are more talented.
Very interesting point about acquiring Morales for free. Certainly looks that way to me. A similar point can be raised in the Jaso/Morse/Shoppach deal. If Shoppach is deemed in an overall sense to be the equivalent of Jaso (leaving aside the number of years under contract), did GMZ essentially just acquire Morse for free?
the first pitcher and position player in many decades.. guess we need to get used to using full names because there is more than one Michael too.
vs ... I dunno. Bazooka?
Beavan's a very calm, predictable no-walks pitcher who can be predicted for a 90'ish ERA+.
There are some key differences if you look close, I think... maybe there's an article there :- )
Noesi can bring it like what, 96, 97 occasionally when throwing short innings. Jay-Z liked his talent. Maybe he'll find a niche; there's real value in relief pitchers who have the sub-skill of going 5 IP when needed.
thought he looked great there at rhe end of 2012.