You are here

Michael Saunders the #4 PCL Prospect

Replies

Taro's picture
Submitted by Taro on

BA does screwy things at times. Halman as the #1 Ms prospect last year for example.

Saunders is a very good prospect (the #2 or #3 Mariner spec) and if Ackley weren't in the system I'd be down with developing him at the MLB level.

As is I think we're better off trading for a guy like Seth Smith who has both short+long term upside and cashing Saunders in for a prospect of lateral value at a position of need. If Saunders struggles in '10 offensively as I expect he will, and Ackley is ready for the bigs by '10/11 (as I also expect he will), then you've blown Saunders' trade value and no longer have a spot for him on your roster.

I have a hard time believing that teams will give up prospects like Alcides Escobar or Brett Wallace for Saunders straight-up, but there has to be a good fit out there. Saunders+ for LaPorta maybe.

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

With Ackley, Gutierrez, Ichiro and the field here ... if you could convert Saunders into a blue-chipper at ANY other position you'd be golden.

I might even flip him for a 24-karat setup man.

.............

Zduriencik of course enjoys traffic jams like Saunders-Ackley-Gillies etc and the M's seem to have a bias towards defense.

.............

Interesting thing though for M's fans, is you start to realize that baseball insiders think VERY highly of Michael Saunders.

IcebreakerX's picture

The Mariners need to play carefully with depth. If you can get someone in MIF for Saunders, that can be a coup, but you can also shoot yourself in the foot bad as well (o, hai asdrubal cabrera). Not that Cabrera was traded for depth, but he was traded from what the team, at one time (for right or wrong ignored), considered a position of depth.

I don't expect Z to Bavasi something up, but behind Ackley and Saunders, the depth gets thinner in terms of impact prospects. Sometimes it might be better for the team to consider moving players around instead of actually moving them off the team (Ackley DID play 1B in College & not all players die from moving around the diamond).

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

Gillies might be the most-esteemed 'spect in the OF after Saunders and Ackley... so, yeah...

That concept needs to be savored... like a fine espresso draw...

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

That kind of ranking looks pretty weird in retrospect, and to some, even at the time.

It's not a reason to discount everything BA says as false, or to ad hominem their detailed scouting reports, but yeah it's worth watching to see when they're getting carried away about some guy's physical upside.

Great point amigo.

Cool Papa Bell's picture

Not every list BA comes up with is a collaborative effort. Each of the rankings for individual teams is done by a single person which means it reflects just one persons opinion. They are also heavily influenced by what that club thinks of their players. So the ranking of Halman #1 this year was the decision of Matt Eddy alone, and it could have been because the M's were super-high on him. I think this is a perfect example of why ordinal rankings are a terrible way to convey information.

Also, Saunders is not the type of guy BA normally drools over. Instead, scout types have been very slow to warm up to him, so if scouts are now raving about him then I would take what they say very seriously.

Leave a Reply

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.