..........

Geoff Baker, pressing his demand for a Prince Fielder play, had a killer line for opponents.  "Why did you offer Felix a contract before you were ready to win?"  (Do Mets writers battle locals who protest that the local club is threatening to bring in great players?)

And if we're having trouble digesting where Zduriencik stands on blue-chippers who are ready to win in the AL, we might go back to Pineda.

.

My view is that Z is likely going to be VERY squeamish about having players skip AAA completely.  I think Z understands that there are "organizational" benefits to making even (maybe especially) the bonus baby talents showcase their talents at multiple levels.

Well, you would be, amigo, we realize.

And it's logical to assume that Jack Zduriencik would think like an old-school player development guy.  

But, from where I sit, Zduriencik is mercifully unencumbered by the "Paying yer dues" mindset.  

And in this specific case, Zduriencik gushed late in 2011 that "I think James Paxton is going to come to spring training and make a statement [about his role on the 2012 Mariners]."  Zduriencik has been clear that Paxton is pitching for an ML job in 2012.

You put your finger on it, right here.  Organizational benefits to payin' yer dues.  Organizational benefits.

.......

Bill James, once he arrived in Boston as a turncoat "insider," was struck by the difference in the way General Managers view this, and the way fans view it.

Boston kept promoting their players faster than fans thought they should, and in several online debates, the fans demanded to know why James hadn't educated Theo Epstein.  "Educated" Theo about what?  About the fact that the "correct" way to develop players is --- > to make sure that a player demonstrates success, comfort, and assimilation, at each level before moving on.

James replied, the minor leagues are not about player development.  Not primarily.

The fans sort of blinked.  

Um, what?

James continued, That which is in the best interests of the individual player is not necessarily in the best interests of the organization of the whole.

The fans sat stunned.

........

Michael Pineda might very well have turned out to be a better pitcher, if he'd spent 2011 in Tacoma, dinking around with a changeup.

But the Mariners don't care what's best for Michael Pineda Inc.  They care about what's best for the Seattle Mariners.

Fans, of course, presume that whatever is best for Pineda must naturally be what is best for the Mariners.  They presume wrong.

.........

John Hart, on ESPN, was asked in March 2011 about the promotions of Michael Pineda and Dustin Ackley (yes, those two players specifically).  

Incredibly, on the air, the anchor asked Hart whether the Mariners shouldn't (artificially) hold those two players out until July, so as to cheat them out of fairly-earned rookie qualification seasons.

The generally-sincere Hart replied, sincerely:  That doesn't enter into it nearly as much as fans think that it does.  A GM has an imperative to get his best 25 players into the clubhouse.  There's a lot of pressure to win.

........

Fans tend to reply, "Hey, the 2011 Mariners weren't going to win the pennant anyway.  So why blow Pineda's year on nothing."

GM's don't think that way.  Their team is selling tickets for tonight's game.  The gift shops are open.  It's a lot easier to punt $250M in gross 2011 revenues when it ain't your $250M.

Pennant or not, MLB franchises are putting a product on the field.  Who ever said that "Pennant Or Bust" is the paradigm?  Where is that in the rules?

..........

You could line up 200 baseball analysts on a continuum, like this: 

-100 develop the player properly --------0------- Exploit the player quickly +100

And San-Man would be either -98, -99, or -100 on the left side.  :- )  I love eeeet.  Sandy holds down the left side of the debate and the sparks fly.

Sometimes I do wonder whether Sandy realizes where most GM's, and where Zduriencik is, though ... ;- )

...........

I would be very open to a discussion of what, specifically, AAA would do for James Paxton.  Not sure I've ever read a real good back-and-forth on that.