You are here

Morrow and Lee Not Linked

Replies

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

Rat cheer...

Ya, the draft picks cut their losses -- either of the picks definitely cancels Gillies, and the other one may cancel 50% of Juan Ramirez.   So you're comfortable giving a #11 overall and half of Ramirez for a year of Lee at a bargain salary.

If he's a rental, the payment is fair, I spose.  If he sticks around for a Braves dynasty it will be a little less fair :- )

Taro's picture
Submitted by Taro on

Z sounds like he really wasn' t high on Morrow. I'm with him there, but I'm interested in why he passed on Ed.Jackson.

Its also interesting to see Z reference League's "swings and misses". :-)

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

In a way, as BABIP caused us to re-think AVG, swings and misses cause a re-thinking of K's.

Neither BABIP nor swing % benefit from exaggeration, but both are core processes that drive a lot of other things.  Like you say, interesting to see a GM speaking the saberdweeb language to a general audience.

OBP_Train's picture

Can't really say I would blame him for dumping morrow. Maybe Z  see's Yusmerio Petit as a #5 starter in the future. Just too bad you couldn't trade morrow to SD  for say Joe Thatcher...

Still league ain't a bad pick just not a spectacular bullpen pick.

 

Sandy's picture
Submitted by Sandy on

I know that I was a lot frostier about Jackson than most of the blog-o-sphere.  While I don't know why Z wasn't warmer on Edwin, I can explain why I was.

  • 2009 - 1st half:  2.52-ERA; 121-IP; 35-BB; 97-K; 10-HR; 7.2-K/9; 2.77-K/BB
  • 2009 - 2nd half: 5.07-ERA; 92.1-IP; 35-BB; 64-K; 17-HR; 6.2-K/9; 1.83-K/BB

In 2009, Jackson put together a fantastic 3 month run.  The rest of 2009, he reverted to pretty much the same control-challenged talent he had been the previous 5 years. 

I get that he's only 25.  I get that those eye-popping numbers from the first half are drool-inducing.  But, I see a kid who has exactly 3 months where he maintained a K/BB above 2.00.  His 1.1 HR/9 is rock steady - absolutely zero improvement there.  His K rate didn't improve, so much as it was a good year, (but not his best).  The only peripheral where Jackson really gained was walks.  But the gain was pretty much isolated to the 1st half. 

How do you tell if a 25-year-old kid had a career year vs. a breakout?  You wait and see.  The optimists see Jackson as a kid who finally "got it" and has arrived ... as a legit #2 starter.  I view him as the pitcher-equivalent of 2004 Beltre.  Yes, age is important.  But, Jackson has been learning against major leaguers for 7 seasons.  Sure, the first 4 years were limited engagements.  But, he's got 670 innings compared to Morrow's 200. 

It's not JUST age.  The more innings thrown w/o improving gradually lowers the odds of future improvement.  And the bulk of the "improvement" seen in 1st half of 2009 vanished overnight.

So, what did he DO during the first half that made him so good?  Well, he walked fewer hitters and struck out more.  "Something" was working.  But, he *ALSO* ran a .249 BABIP in the 1st half.  In the 2nd half, he ran a .312.  His career BABIP against is .306.  So, for 3 months, everything hit stuck in a glove.

The ultimate scope on Jackson mostly relies on whether one believes the 1st three months of 2009 are representative of what he'll bring in the future -- or whether the last three months are.  Age and player control (salary) issues count against him in a trade for Morrow.  As to what Jack saw ... can only guess.  Me?  I viewed Morrow and Jackson both as BOR projects that would only move to TOR types if/when they could develop consistency. 

Taro's picture
Submitted by Taro on

The two biggest keys I see are that his command has improved a few years in a row and his SwS% jumped in '09. Add that he pitched 30+ more inning AND averaged over 15 more pitches per start, and it seems likely that fatigue was setting in during the 2nd half.

I mean you never know with pitchers, but I do think Ed.Jackson has a good chance of breaking out next season. I think Morrow struggles next season and Ed.Jack takes that next step. 

okdan's picture
Submitted by okdan on

I was originally a little suspicious that Z was cleaning house of Bavasi prospects, partially to make his mark on the team, and remove all traces of the prior regime. But after thinking through it a bit more, I don't think this is entirely accurate.

In Baker's interview, Z seems to speak genuinely about Morrow's potential and raw talent. He knows he's got a special arm. What I think, though, is that Z is spetacularly UN-satisfied with what lies between Morrow's two ears. Morrow just isn't Z (or Wak's) type of ballplayer. The whole confusing situation last year where Morrow pulled himself out of the rotation, citing diabetes issues, and then "changing" his mind... I think that was the point at which Z made up his mind on the kid. Z wants self-confident ballplayers who are laser focused on stomping the opponent. I don't think Z saw this in Morrow.

A counter example to this would be Snell. Snell is arguable even less unsure of himself than Morrow. But if you look a little deeper, I think there are some fundamental differences in how the two players see themselves. I think Snell's issues are mostly superficial, born out of what must have been an emotionally draining life in Pittsburgh. But deep down, it's my opinion that Ian Snell has that killer instinct. The killer instinct that Z demands, and that Brandon Morrow will never have.

I'm assuming a lot of things, and this is all pure speculation. But after watching Brandon since he was drafted, and being one of his hugest proponents, this is my assesment of one of the rationales behind the deal.

That said, not one fiber of my being will be surprised when Brandon throws a 17-4 season next year, and just as un-surprised when Z doesn't blink at it.

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

They have completely different kinds of makeup issues -- Snell's rooted in frustration, Morrow's rooted in passivity.

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.