=== Extend Jarrod Washburn ?! ===

Matty floats the question of whether the M's should .... EXTEND Jarrod Washburn?  Which is a bit like Batman re-thinking his relationship with the Joker and proposing that the Clown Prince of Crime take Alfred's place as chef.

The Mariners are surely doing exactly what Matt (and the other clubs) are:  they're WATCHING Jarrod Washburn.  Pitchers can and do evolve, like Cliff Lee recently.  Washburn, if he evolved, might have gone from "average-mediocre innings eater" to "quality #3-4 starter."  But we were all too tough on Washburn the last couple of years, as we were on Raul Ibanez and a host of other players we didn't understand.  The politics got in the way of clear thinking.

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

Also owe it to Chuck Armstrong to concede that his decision on Washburn turned out well.   Nobody was harder on that one than I was.

So, I unsay everything about that particular move :- ) except for the general opinion that I'd rather Armstrong (who is by all accounts saber-literate) not be playing co-GM.

That's not to say I'm glad the move was nixed, or that Washburn's money shouldn't be going to Adam Dunn.  Am simply issuing an apology where one is due.

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

It's funny how many times you see this, that the 3% of baseball moves you think to be the most obviously stupid, work out fine.   The very moves you think were made by a kindergartener, time and again turns out smelling like a rose.

Just for example, I remember the Padres giving Scott Sanders to the M's for Sterling Hitchcock.   Sanders had just finished a debut year in the NL with 9.8 strikeouts, 3.0 walks and 0.6 homers; Hitchcock was then what Jarrod Washburn was in 2008.   Bill James couldn't believe his eyes on that trade -- but Hitchcock went on to pitch well, and Sanders was one of the great optical illusions of the last 20 years.

I remember a late-80's trade of Oddibe McDowell (then an emerging young star in CF) for Dion James.  A famous analyst said, "I get asked whether I could GM.  I don't know if I could handle the contracts, but I WOULD SURE AS SHOOTIN' KNOW BETTER THAN TO GIVE UP ODDIBE MCDOWELL FOR DION JAMES."

Yet McDowell promptly had a horrific year the next season, was out of baseball a year later, while James played better than expected...

Baseball people often understand ballplayers on an INTUITIVE level that we do not.  Baseball people ALWAYS gave Jarrod Washburn more credit than we sabertistas did.

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

Statistics are backwards-looking by their very nature.

Predicting the future isn't as easy as we sabertistas think it is.  We think that 99% of the time, a player's 50th-percentile PECOTA projection is the "correct" projection for him.  It isn't the "correct" prediction; it's a correct evaluation of what he DID do and what his arc is.

Pitchers can and do evolve.  Sabertistas need to get it very clear that GM's are within their rights to judge that a particular pitcher will or won't have better seasons in front of him.

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

Grizzly consistently argues that the problem wasn't that the Mariners signed one Jarrod Washburn; it was that they signed three of them.  That'll do for me too.

So let's be aware that Silva isn't going anywhere for 2009-10.  Washburn himself would still be the second Washburn signing for 2010.

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

Like everybody else, I'm watching to see how much Washburn's success carries into July.  If it does, he's a reasonable #4 SP signing for any contender -- and that's exactly what will happen for him.

I'm a Stars & Scrubs guy and want to see talented youngsters fighting for the #4-5 rotation slots.  Unfortunately, the two blue-chippers (Morrow and Aumont) just bailed on the interview process.  So a Washburn signing is itself contingent on where you assess your replacements to be.   ...if they're even halfway reasonably talented, you go with them -- but I'm not sure the M's replacements are.  Who is pitching at Tacoma that you believe in for the ML rotation?  Thought so.

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

If Washburn continues to impress --- that is, he performs as a solid #4 SP, not as a #2 SP -- and if you don't like your #5-7 SP's, then re-signing him is reasonable, IMHO.

I don't expect that to be the case.

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

Tell you what I WOULD be in favor of, though.  What does that Bedard guy want?

Cheers,

Dr D