=== Rookie Aversion Dept. ===
Spec's implied question is, "Yeah, but are GM's comfortable with the fact that their weak spots are manned by rookies?"
Most aren't. A few are. Billy Beane has so much confidence in his own talent judgment that he doesn't care whether a player is a rookie or not. Talent goes into the lineup, and if it doesn't pan out, well, his roster is fluid anyway.
Theo Epstein has plenty enough confidence in his own talent judgment to commit to rookies, but of course the Sox have such a high payroll that he's not called on to use it.
Most lineups that have 4x holes in them -- as the Bavasi/Armstrong offenses -- had those holes precisely because teams committed to veterans who turned out lousy. Had they had rookies in there, the fluidity of Stars & Scrubs would have stopped the hemorrhaging.
In a very real way, committing to three Marco Scutaros at LF, 3B, and C would be more risky than playing three talented rookies there. If the Scutaros tank, you have to suffer with them.
Batista, Silva, and Washburn felt very solid when they walked around training camp, didn't they?
I don't share the emotion that says, we have vets here, we're safe. My emotion is: the more options I have, the safer I am.
.
=== 2006-08 Brew ===
What is interesting is that the 2005-08 Brewers got good precisely by swapping out all of their aging journeymen for bright young talents.
In 2006, the Brewers were loaded with aging MLB(TM) journeymen like Brady Clark and Geoff Jenkins.
But Fielder and Weeks had just gotten there (as Franklin Gutierrez just got here) -- and in 2007 the Brewers slammed three more "rookies" into the fulltime lineup, those being Ryan Braun, J.J. Hardy* and Corey Hart.
Fielder and Weeks were 23 and 24, and Braun was a "pure" rookie. Hart had 300 AB's in the bigs over a few seasons -- but then so do Adam Moore and Michael Saunders have some AB's in the bigs. J.J. Hardy had almost a full season behind him, but he's now the 5th guy under 25.
............
We can quibble with minor differences between the 2007 M's and 2010 Mariners, but the main observation is clear. The team that Zduriencik just came from, got good precisely because they shoved "all in" on young, unproven talents.
.............
Are Saunders, Tuiasosopo and Moore that caliber of talent? That's a great debate in Seattle. Most would allow that they're as talented as Weeks, Hardy, and Hart -- the Fielder and Braun might have to come from the FA market. :- )
But if my "consolation" for playing two or three ML-ready blue chippers is that I get Lackey, Dunn, and Crawford, I'm willing to give it a whirl.
................
If the question is: "Is it too risky to play Saunders, Tui, and Moore along with an import of several ML stars?" Then the answer is no. In fact, with Saunders there is no risk whatsoever. Given that you like an Endy Chavez situation in LF, that position (and RF) would be the least-risky in your 2010 lineup.
It definitely would not be "incorrect" to play all three of them, so that you could import more talent. And GM's wouldn't tell you that it was.
If the question is: will Zduriencik prefer not to do that? Then I'm sure the answer is yes. He's already shown his hand on that one.
.
=== The Real Issue ===
... is not that Capt Jack wouldn't play 3 rookies.
When Dustin Ackley shows he can hit an ML curve ball, he's in there. Z has said as much.
If Zduriencik had three Dustin Ackleys in 2011, they'd all get slammed in there.
............
It's not that Zduriencik won't play a rookie. It's that he's not sure about these three rookies.
That's fair enough. :- )
Printer-friendly version