I think Jack loves Miller. And I think the idea of him playing short does not make Jack feel settled and confident.
And you know what? I feel exactly the same way. Remember the game-losing 'flip' to Cano?
That's where I think the talk of Miller-in-the-outfield comes from (and maybe the dissing of Saunders?) And although Taylor is better defensively, I wonder if Jack thinks he can hit enough without the inflated BABIP.
So maybe the idea of Hanley at SS is not as abhorrent to him as it is to many fans. Because right now, he may not think he's got two shortstops--he may think he has none.
.
Find the aim and achieve it. To sail to and fro, this will expose you to a strategic disgrace. - GM Aron Nimzovich
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
The only thing more important than knowing the rules, is knowing their exceptions. - jemanji
To get squares, you gotta give squares. - Bobby Fischer
Water can flow, or it can crash. Be water, my friend. - Bruce Lee
".268/.330/.464 in Safeco, second half" - Brad Miller's bat
...
Jack Zduriencik reminds me of Whitey Herzog, give or take the belly laugh and the rings. (Whitey Herzog minus those two things is still a whale of a baseball man. A great Bill James line about Herzog -- who ran James' beloved 1970's Royals -- "If Whitey hadn't been an MLB manager, he'd have been the county sheriff.")
The passage I remember best from his book The White Rat: "If it's drizzling, Templeton doesn't wanna play. If it's Thursday, he doesn't wanna play. If his wife yelled at him, he doesn't wanna play. I gotta have a starting shortstop I can count on." Or somesuch.
Whereupon Whitey "templeton'ed" his starting shortstop to San Diego, taking back a slick-fielding kid who could flip sky-high handsprings on his way out to his position. Or, occasionally, while turning a double play. Whitey got a shortstop who loved to play the game, and the St. Louis Cardinals of the 1980's became the Kansas City Royals of the 1970's. St. Louis' quasi-dynasty hasn't let up much since.
The thing is, as a young player in St. Louis, Garry Templeton was kinda the Hanley Ramirez of the late 1970's - overrated, flashy, loved the "long green," thought of as a star, etc. Meanwhile, Brendan Ryan and Jack Wilson were kinda the Ozzie Smiths of the '00's.
Thusly:
Templeton / Hanley | Ozzie / Ryan / Wilson | |
Defense | Dubious | Brought tears to your eyes, 3x/week |
Reliability | Reliably on the DL | 100% |
Offense | Scared enemy pitching | "Pesky" NL-style 2-strike fouls |
Personality | Dreads and bling (era-adjusted) | Org spear carrier, Bloomie magnitude |
League | AL-style | NL-style |
.
Bill James has convinced me that there is a difference between a collection of talent and a ballclub. Recently on Hey Bill (just for example) he talked about an '80's Mets teams that could have won 100 games, and chose instead to lose 100 ...
Whitey Herzog, who was pretty much Earl Weaver give or take speed-vs-OBP, believed that one critical aspect of "ballclubness" was to have a starting shortstop who gives your defense a "settled, confident" feeling.
As a guy who flips through baseball almanacs, I find this quite plausible. The Big Red Machine had Joe Morgan / Robinson Cano at second, but still felt the need to play Dave Concepcion at third. The Little Blue Bicycle in their division had Bill Russell play every game* for 10-12 years. Derek Jeter. Cal Ripken. etc.
The funny thing: you thought for all the world that Jack Zduriencik was an Ozzie Smith, White Rat type of NL curmudgeon. And here he spins on his heel and shanks you in the short ribs with a thunderously American League idea. The concept of Josh Hamilton at shortstop. Wouldn't be boring.
Hanley Ramirez is such a different idea from Brendan Ryan, and Jack Wilson, and Chris Taylor. The M's would go from having a long string of 2-first-name guys at short, to the whiplash effect of having an 0-first-name guy. I'm not up for it.
But then, check the lead-in quotes. One man's "incoherency" is another man's "flexibility of spirit."
LOL,
Jeff
Comments
Those in the M's blogosphere who aren't reading this stuff, are really missing out. Funny, and insightful.
Hmmm...Crazy Legs instead of Saunders in RF...yeah, if Jack likes it, I could get used to it.
Hanley and Taylor at DH/SS...yeah, I could see it.
I think Jack's just noodlin' however...Brad at SS, Michael in right, and go get a right handed DH.
I'd like to think that the GM of my team was a shrewd, canny player, but I 'm mostly sure that isn't the case.
If you look at our 40 man now compared to when he took over...
if you think about the fact that Robbie Cano plays for us...
was that all an accident?
I think Tom McNamara is really good at what he does, probably the best in the business.