The Mariners need a "big bat"...and I don't just mean a 30-HR guy...we actually already have three of those, if they'd get some support. No, we need a big bat in the sense that we need someone who will CONSISTENTLY hit 30 HR, and bat .300. Someone that scares the pitcher and forces him to change his approach against the rest of the Ms' young hitters.
The As have three guys who are legit threats right now...Cespedes, Donaldson and Crisp. Reddick is hitting .203 with 3 homers. :) But the point is still valid. they have some guys that they can actually count on...the Mairner shave lots of guys who are interesting...but no one that is consistent.

The winningest team of all time ... Brett Boone was the "legitimizer".
The thing is ... you hit the nail on the head when you traced the futility spree origin back to Edgar. Edgar "legitimized" the lineup, NOT because of his power, but because he (and most of the rest of the offense) were hard to get OUT.
The 2001 team had a TEAM OBP of .361.
The 2013 team has a team OBP of .299
Not that the ISO is good mind you. But, the club that is 15th in BA, 13th in OBP and 13th in Slugging ... is actually 7th in total HRs.
In 2001, the TEAM had an OBP of .360 ... while today Nick Franklin is the only PLAYER on the roster over .360.
In all honesty, has it EVERY looked like Kyle Seager *needs* a legit MOO hitter to make him good?
====
For me ... the club CLEARLY has more total hitting talent on the roster than it has had in a loooong time. Yes, they're going through an offensive funk at the moment. But, I think it is important to remember that the opposition over the same 12 games has an even LOWER total ERA ... (and only went 6-6). You think they aren't feeling snakebit?
And, of course, while the offense has swooned to a 94 OPS+ ... the pitching ... even with the great starting pitching of late sits at 91 ERA+.
Our Closer has turned into a Major Crime. Personally, I think it easy to track back recent woes to the pen as much as the offense.

Article at ESPN today urges Pirates to bid for Stanton to shore up their offense. I expect that the price for Stanton, in terms of prospects / young MLB players will get expensive. M's will need to have alternate strategy in place in case they get out-bid, e.g., Fielder situation where it appeared M's had no alternative strategy. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/37195/pirates-need-to-make-b...

He's a Cuban playing in Mexico with Castro's permission, so he hasn't defected yet. But if he decides to, he would be much more available than Stanton this winter. I'd figure the M's could go at least as high as Cespedes' 4/$36 contract.

Oakland has them in spades. They are a lot easier to acquire (everyone Oakland pulled in for their current lineup we could have gotten ourselves). We have so many future quality civics in the pipeline, good young ballplayers who need to make the jump from struggling kid to quality bat. Oakland rarely has to make that jump - they pick them up in deals when entering their 26-30 ages. And sometimes they get real lucky, like they did with Donaldson. There's no legitimizer there: no Giambi. A bunch of Civics, but Civics that have by and large already paid their dues - elsewhere.
I think it's easier to focus on getting 100 and above OPSs all through the lineup than it is to find that huge bat. Heck, we tried with Smoak and Montero (and Ackley) and we get outbid for the older free agents. If we can get everyone contributing at 95 and above, I'll be delighted. It means chasing after the Coco Crisps, and Josh Reddicks and Seth Smiths (and Michael Bourns, and Nick Swishers), and finding a Donaldson here and there, trading for a Jaso, keeping a Carp. When we won 88 games we had a civics lineup. Couple years later we put another one together and won 85.
But I like the legitimizer, and I'm sure Beane does as well. I think we had two of them this season - but Morse and Morales have hurt themselves trying to do too much because we lacked quality civics. If Morse hadn't hurt himself trying to score from first because hitters 8 & 9 were coming up, and Morales wasn't covering for Smoak and Liddi at first base, we'd have healthy legitimizers, healthy because they are allowed to play within themselves and not covering for broken down Chevys.
Incidentally, Justin Upton is currently at 120 OPS+ (.807 OPS). That's the other danger of trying to acquire that legitimizer: you either spend all your cash, or you burn through your prospects, and you are counting on one guy staying healthy. I think it's possible we made a better decision by losing Upton, but keeping our prospects and acquiring Morse and Morales. We kept Edgar healthy by not asking him to do more than hit. Branyan, our last true "legitimizer" probably wore down playing too much first base at his age (I just checked the stats - he didn't play a single game at DH that season - unbelievable).

You might remember, Doc, that my first significant posts here were on why I thought Loria would/will trade one of the best young players in the game, namely Giancarlo Cruz-Michael Stanton, and why I thought the Ms could swing it.
Haven't moved off that. I think it will be painful, but maybe something like this, given the play of some of our lesser-known prospects this year, might do it. It's an overpay, but I just think Stanton makes the Ms recipe work. I'd offer it to them right now, but would be willing to wait until the off-season if they aren't ready now. I just don't want Texas to jump in with a lesser offer, or anybody else, for that matter. If Texas thinks they'll lose Cruz for the stretch, they may try something; but I don't think they can offer what we can.
Taijuan Walker - I just think Loria will have to get him to justify it to his fan base (to the extent he bothers)
Choice of Paxton or Maurer or Romero or Montero (another top-10 prospect from our system - and hope he goes for Yankee glamour!)
Choice of Taylor, Pike, Sanchez, Morban, Choi, or Guerrero (a top-20 or so prospect from our system)
Choice of two of Landazuri, Elias, Shipers, AFernandez, Lopes, Marlette, Jones, Pimentel, MPeguero, or Blash (two decent lower prospects)
That sort of package would neither cripple us nor be easy to give up. For Miami, they could fill their needs for IF depth, ML-ready pitching depth, (so they can trade Nolasco finally - I'd expect them to take Maurer and immediately put him in the rotation), and more lower-level prospects to add to what they have with Heaney, Marisnick, Yelich, et al. The general level of talent is consistent with previous deals for stars, with a bit extra because Stanton is 23 and arb-eligible.
If Miami takes this and also deals Nolasco for a 2-ranked-plus-1 package, they could be in the Cardinal's class for MiLB prospects - with Ozuna, Fernandez, and Turner already on the MLB roster. With Hecheverria not hitting, I'd expect them to ask for Miller, but let the bargaining begin.

Has a blog entry up suggesting the Pirates go after Stanton. -- Here's what he says it will take -
"Here’s what it will cost: Double-A starter Jameson Taillon, Keith Law’s No. 20 prospect entering the season who has pitched well at Altoona; outfielder Gregory Polanco, the No. 55 prospect who has shot up in value after a strong showing that recently got him promoted to Double-A; catcher Tony Sanchez, the former No. 1 pick who is hitting .303 with nine home runs at Triple-A Indianapolis; plus a decent C-grade lefty"
Gordon or Spec can correct me, but that looks like Walker + Romero/Montero + Morban + AFernandez would be in spitting distance. And Schoenfield concludes that more (Cole instead of Taillon, SS Alen Hanson instead of Sanchez) would be too much for the Pirates - I would say the Ms could do it, with Walker = Cole and more good prospects, without regret.

I'm not trading Walker and Paxton and 3 more bright prospects for Stanton. Hey, he was a big time bomber last year with 37 homers, but his '11 and '13 might just as well be his normal. They are still pretty good, but I'm not giving away all that for a 140 OPS guy. Heck, Morse was better than Stanton in '11 and he was pretty dang gettable. I'm the contrarian here. But I'm not giving away the farm for 3.5 guaranteed years of Stanton. He's a FA in '17. Ink him to 8 years and you change the dynamic of this idea, but until then....I'm out. Pittsburg is playoff hunting right now....he makes more sense for a team like that, even without a LT contract.

Absolutely you make that trade to put Stanton into our RF.

Plenty good enough for me, especially at age 21. This season he's been injured, but those numbers still look great. Then lock him up, and smile, smile, smile. Do the Pirates want another high priced slugger going elsewhere? Methinks they'll keep the good prospects and continue to do their building the Devil Ray way.
If we dealt Walker and Paxton/Mauer, we'd still be left with Hultzen and Erasmo, and either Paxton or Mauer My guess is they'd take Mauer over Paxton, so we'd need Paxton to step up.

Would just say that we've watched the Mariners get pitched fearlessly...it usually consists of toying with the good hitters (Ibanez getting walked by Rivera, e.g.) and bullying the bad ones. With a straw that stirs, the guys hitting just ahead of the straw have to be pitched more aggressively and the guys hitting just behind the straw get more situations with men on base that distort team defenses and defeat the shift. The effect is not large in the aggregate, but if you don't have even one of those types of hitters that force the formation of a strategy for the middle of your order...the effect could be larger...though I'm not sure a study has been done on that.

All respect...not trying to run anyone down...but Standton's '11 was his age 21 season...he improved in '12 and has been hurt this season, not to mention being deeply unhappy with the Marlins. Stanton is, IMHO, a generational talent...on par with Ken Griffey Jr. You absolutely trade Walker/Paxton/Montero/Morla or Fernandez or something like that to get Stanton. I have almost no limits on a Stanton trade except that I will not include King Felix or Dustin Ackley (would be selling low) and won't trade more than 6 players.

But I do see your point. I don't think we would have to give up both Franklin and Miller though...I would be willing to go Walker/Franklin/Smoak/pick any fourth prospect from a list of top prospect arms and sweeteners could be added from there.

With Ozuna up, and Yelich and Marisnick not far behind, and several interesting bats at lower levels, Miami is pretty well fixed for OF bats. What they need is pitching, infielders, including 1B, infield depth, and then more pitching, as they are in a division with arguably the best young pitching in baseball.
Actually, I think we match up pretty well. Taylor is a significantly better SS than Alen Hanson, for example, who may yet need to be moved off of SS because of excessive errors. And Taylor has hit significantly better, although his HD numbers may need some discount. Polanco is the Pirates version of Morban, but is not significantly better on a performance/age analysis - I think Morban will be ranked very highly if he can avoid further DL time, which has been his bugaboo. And the Mariners system is generally ranked above or well above the Pittsburgh system for good reason - although the Ms have been weak in impact bats, they have some very well-regarded pitching and infield prospects, with multiples at most positions.
Using some of the multiples, but letting Miami choose from an abundance of talent, rather than just three or four guys we really can't afford to lose (see Jones, Adam, or see Schoenfield's comments about Pittsburgh upping their offer), the Ms are actually in a pretty good place, it seems to me. Yes, Miller may be involved, but that might reduce the number of available young pitchers that Miami might drool over. And their scouts might prefer Taylor, who is definitely the better fielder. But meanwhile we just drafted Smith of OSU, who may be in the same class. Schoenfield was postulating a standard four-for-one trade, similar to Lee. I'd prefer to offer 5, and within limits, offer them choices, which we can do and most other teams can't. It would be an interesting negotiation!

I thought Smoak was supposed to be the lineup legitimizer. And then, after Smoak turned out to be "meh", I thought Montero was supposed to be the lineup legitimizer. And then, after we all apparently collectively decided that young guys can't succeed at lineup legitimization, I thought Morales was supposed to be the lineup legitimizer. And then, after Morales was deemed not enough alone, I thought Morse was supposed to be the lineup legitimizer.
What gives? Is a 130 wRC+ combo at the heart of the lineup not legitimate enough? Is the only way for the Mariners to become "legitimate" again for them to dump out their entire farm system in a trade for a superstar?
The Mariners' offense has sucked for the last two weeks because it's been Nick Franklin and nobody else. Saunders is in a mega-slump and his power is still gone from the shoulder injury. Morales has an injured back, and Morse has an injured quad. Zunino looks as raw as everyone predicted, and even Seager has taken a few games off with a .039 ISO over the last three weeks. When everyone who can hit is injured, of course the team produces no offense. I don't think it has anything to do with the roster construction (except maybe that counting on the injury-prone Morse and Morales to be there all the time was a bad idea). These last twelve games haven't been "civics", they've been "stars and scrubs" - except there's only one star.

Bah, comment box

Just to make myself clear, I don't think every Ms prospect is the elite at his position (if my Pimentel comments didn't make that clear). I am especially skeptical of Dominican prospects that get so much hype due to the open bidding process and then OPS .600 for several years, have a good year, and then get sudden re-appreciation. Show me at AA with 1/2 a season with elite (>1.000 OPS) numbers and I'll agree the prospect is elite. Until then, a guy who has starred in NCAA in the field (BBCOR bats discounted, of course) and then hits consistently in the minors at >.800+ OPS is a much better prospect ESPECIALLY when I'm trading for him.
Look around at the major trades of the past few years. Dominican prospects definitely trade at a discount.....like pitchers, they just aren't as sure a value, and VALUE is what is being traded. I would expect any GM given a choice between Hanson and Taylor WITH A NEED AT THE POSITION (important caveat on gambling) will go with Taylor as a better chance for value.
Morban has hit both better AND more consistently at higher levels at a younger age than Hanson or Polanco. While still a big risk because of his DL time (can you spell Gutierrez), my point is, in TRADE VALUE, I doubt there is any significant difference between Polanco and Morban except for those fixated on rankings. (Of course, Loria could be)

On position players I generally agree that getting a blue chipper trumps quantity. But on pitchers, I believe most teams who have a stud or two already (Fernandez + Turner and then + Walker would definitely qualify) might prefer a package of Landazuri + Shipers + Elias to a second-level chip like Maurer. I like Maurer and think he will be good MOR guy in a year or so as he gets experience. But unless he fits with plans for Nolasco, a team like Miami with a ways to go may prefer 3 draws on the lottery that is pitching prospects instead of one. IF such is the case, then we match up very well with most systems.
I am curious though - I realize that a .909 OPS in the Sally League had some people impressed, but I don't see a .788 OPS in the Florida State League as an "elite bat", especially from a guy that has, what, 20 errors now? At younger in age, in a higher league, Franklin hit much better and was still considered a possible SS even in AAA. Almost nobody thinks Hanson will stay at SS even in A+. Don't see it. Taylor, on the other hand is likely to be more visible this year, without 4 years in the scout's eye as the MPegueros, Pimentals, and Hansons get. A year out of college, in AA, playing what everyone consider elite SS - Taylor may hit a few lists - unless they figure they already have too many Ms.
As to Morban v. Polanco, the numbers also do not favor Polanco. He has not hit as well as Morban, who is at a higher level and is 6 months or so younger. Maybe he is a dynamite fielder, but Morban is considered a borderline acceptable CF, but a very good corner, so I doubt there is a lot of difference. Yes, in a Pittsburgh system crying for good news he's gotten good press. But I think Morban' s DL time has more to do with the difference than actual talent. And, as I say, the numbers and age/level favor Morban. He really is kind of a hidden gem - but I doubt if it's for long. Meanwhile Guillermo "Electric Bat" Pimental sends his greetings to Polanco.

Unless it's Griffey/A-Rod/Stanton-caliber youth. Last year I posted how no team EVER relied on as much 25-and-under youth in the lineup and was successful, and certainly not as much inexperienced youth (players in their first and second years as big-leaguers).  That's not turning around, not if Zunino and Franklin and Miller are all supposed to take us to the promised land, while Ackley and Smoak are not the MOTO players we need them to be going into year 4.
If we're trying to build a 2014 or 2015 contender then it's almost impossible to do it just by promoting all our young hitters. If you want to rely on Miller and Choi and Morban and Peterson and Wilson to turn this thing around, then just understand you're talking about 2017... when Seager and Ackley and Smoak and Saunders are all either gone or about to go.
If we want to jumpstart the process, then history says we'll need to trade some of that youth for a game-changer or two, and get lucky with the ones we keep.  There are few game-changers hanging around for sale. We don't need a player like Stanton just because he's young, or good, but also because at this point he's a veteran in the Miguel Cabrera sense when he went to Detroit - but that was not a young team.  They built the team around him after that.
We can do that.  We can keep doing that.  We need some cornerstones.  I agree with Sandy that we had a good offense in the Gar days, and that everybody played well, but there were cornerstones.  Gar was one.  Moyer was one. We split really good sections of Griffey and A-Rod's careers, but we could lose HOFers and not fall off, and that was because of Gar, IMO.  We could get good players to come here because we had HOFers and were winning.  Felix is a HOFer, but we need the hitter version of him.
---------------------
Again, IMO. And if there's one thing our system lacks it's a power bat.  I don't think we'd regret having Stanton.  Might the package of Walker/Franklin/Morban/whomever hurt? Sure. But we have Miller to replace Franklin if we'd like, or Ackley can have his position back. Chris Taylor might be the SS of the future anyway. 
I'm leery of trading Walker - but them I'm leery of having a 550-run offense for several more years too.  Maybe Franklin IS Jeter and Zunino IS Posada, and we'll be fine in a coupla years... but those guys still had Tino and Bernie in their primes, and the Warrior O'Neill.
We have pieces but are missing lynchpins.  Our puzzle doesn't quite fit, and relying on the kids to be future HOFers to make the build work without lynchpins (because then they ARE the lynchpins) is a tough bet to take after watching Ackley and Smoak scuffle their way to worthlessness at the plate these last couple years.
I love our minor leaguers, but I also believe we can keep finding decent players in our system perpetually with Jack in charge.  But if Jack can't build a winning team out of those players it won't do us any good.
Trying to grow a team is an organic thing, not a pure numbers thing.  And our mix has been off.  I don't know that a "lineup legitimizer" fixes the mix completely, but we do have too many players for the available positions.  I'd still take a LoMo and Stanton swap for some VERY nice prospects and see where it gets us.  Re-sign Morales, call it a day.  LoMo, Morales, Stanton, try to keep Franklin (by trading Miller), Zunino, Seager, maybe Ackley in CF...? now we're getting somewhere.
It might not work, but at least it's not a perpetual 5 year plan.  And with a pitching lineup of Felix/ Iwakuma/ Erasmo/ Hultzen/ whoever we might have the rotation to pull off some winning streaks too.
Just a thought.
~G

Look around the web at the "youngest to 100HR", both in games and age. Stanton displaced Frank Robinson ( ! ) in the age one for 10th all-time, and ranks 8th by games played - in the conversation with Ott, Matthews, Kaline, Robinson, ....pretty nice group!
I'd try to keep Felix, Ackley (for the same reason), Seager, Zunino, and Franklin (as the new core), and Hultzen (as our lefty). Erasmo and Miller I'd try to keep, as well, but less intently, because they are the closer alternatives to Taylor and others that are farther away - which I think is more significant to us than to Miami. i don't think they would be interested in Saunders or Smoak, given their inconsistency. Montero is a toss-up - they might take a chance on 1B, since Morrison is their Mr. Inconsistent, as noted in another comment. But certainly not a C, with Brantley and Realmuto coming, and there's only so many games for them with the DH.

I've stated it before, and I'll repeat it here.
you *CANNOT* know what your youth and prospects are going to produce, until you let them play and SEE.
ZERO people were expecting Smoak, Ackley and Montero to *ALL* faceplant. Nobody.
Then again, I was about the only guy high on Seager when he first arrived.
Just about Everyone, (including me), had given up on Saunders before he turned things around last year - and few "expected" his 2013 crash and burn.
But, pause for one second. "What if" you swap EXACTLY, Ibanez' 2013 stat line for Montero's, (or maybe even Smoaks)?
If Montero currently had a .235/.275/.490 line with 14 HRs ... would there be complaints about not having a legit power bat?
========
I think one of the problems today is that there was an "anti-OBP-is-everything" backlash in the wake of Moneyball. No, OBP isn't "everything". But, it remains the primary "most important" single stat. Seattle's problem is primarily that they make too many outs. 15th in BA ... 13th in OBP ... 13th in slugging. There's WAY more than one problem.
I think what irks me about the "legitimizer" concept is that the premise is essentially that the "right player" will magically improve the performance of eveyrone else.
Is Cano not a legitimizer? The Yankees today have an 85 OPS+.
Is Jose Bautista not a legimitimizer? The BlueJays have a team 99 OPS+
Seager does not appear to "need" a legitimizer.
Ibanez does not appear to "need" a legitimizer.
Is there REALLY a belief that Albert Pujols (or Josh Hamilton) coming to the Mariners is going to suddenly make Brendan Ryan a competent hitter?
My perspective?
What Seattle needs - (and has needed for some time) - is an even modest ability to help players (ANY player - young or old) snap out of slumps.
Saunders' implosion is horrible to watch - but you've gotta wonder at some point if whatever steps the club is taking, why does it seem that they always fail?
Lost in the mix is the reality that after a fantastic April (.799 OPS with 8-HR), Morse went .774 with only 3 in May (not horrible, but clearly disappointing power numbers) ... and is .653 with 0 in June.
Every player slumps. I spent a decade watching the ups and downs of Andruw Jones. But, with Seattle, it seems like waaaay more often than any other team I know, the slumps become excessive.
I do not know how or why this would continue to manifest despite multiple turn-over in coaches.
Maybe it really is the impact of the left field winds. Perhaps the balls that fall in elsewhere that break slumps get held up in Seattle, which extends them to the point that it breaks the hitters mentally.
In any case, I personally got to watch Dale Murphy "lead" Atlanta to a multitude of horrible team offensive results in the '80s. If every there was a lineup "legitimizer", it was Dale Murphy.
========
Currently, the Baltimore Orioles lineup is destroying the AL. Last year, Adam Jones and Chris Davis blossomed. It did NOT happen over night. Jones had 4 full seasons below .800 OPS before he "became" a legitimizer. Davis could not even crack the starting lineup and had 5 partial seasons with an OPS+ under 100 before he busted out in 2012 with his .823 and 33 HR performance.
Baltimore actually GOT RID OF their two veteran legitimizers (Derek Lee and Vlad) from 2011 and got a LOT better.
While there may be some impact on results if you have a threatening bat behind you (or a useless one) ... in the end, the vast majority of production for players is determined by the basic pitcher-hitter battle. It is Seager vs. CJ Wilson. Or Pujols vs. Felix. Or Iwakuma vs Hamilton. IMO, that defines 97% of the results. But, the "big bat fixes everything" mentality fixates on the 3%.
Ackley and Smoak and Montero have stumbled because Ackley and Smoak and Montero have stumbled. Bringing in Josh Hamilton would not have changed that. Bringing in Prince Fielder would not have changed that. If it really were that simple ... the LA Dodgers would not rank 14th in runs scored this year. Josh Hamilton would not be hitting like Brendan Ryan. Chris Davis, (who barely held onto an MLB job for 5 years), would not be the leading candidate for MVP this year.
=========
My perception is the fans and pundits are pre-conditioned to view the negative from Seattle more than the positive.
The simple truth is ... since the 8 game losing strea, Seattle had gone 12-12, (prior to the 10-9 defeat last night). They've played .500 ball. They have played .500 ball DESPITE a badly slumping offense. They played .500 ball DESPITE sending ALL THREE of their top prospects back to the farm or to the DL. They played .500 ball DESPITE a CLOSER turning into MAJOR CRIMES.
The ovewhelming concensus opinion from the fans is --- the club is players really badly right now. Playing badly AND winning half the time is NOT reason to complain. It is reason to celebrate. You know what wins 50% of the time when they play badly? GOOD teams.
The offense is slumping
The bullpen is a mess
We cannot win the close ones
yet ... STILL playing .500 ball.
So ... exactly how good does the team get when the offense stops slumping, (and with the way Ackley is tearing up AAA, there is reason to believe he may come back stronger for the sidetrip).
How good does the team get when they bring up Moran?
How good does the team get when Erasmo joins the rotation?
Me? I think the team has what it needs.
I think what the fans need is just a little patience ... because this is NOT one of those Bavasi teams designed to get worse as the year progresses. It is not one of the early Z teams where he is forced to scrounge for a league throw-away like Josh Wilson to come in (and actually make the team better --- shudder).
It is a young team ... but a young team with "some" experience. It is a team with some decent veterans, well-suited for backup roles (that have generally been forced to play too much due to injuries).
It is a team that was pretty well positioned to improve as the season progresses.
Seager is already a legit star in the making.
Franklin is looking eerily similar to rookie version of Seager.
Ackley is hitting up a storm and may well resolve the CF situation very shortly.
Erasmo is near ready.
Moran has been ready.

Right on, Sandy. Right on.
Let us see what we do have, before we decide what we don't have. Hey, I'm aware that Stanton is pretty dang good. But Stanton in this lineup instead of Raul or Bay (who he would replace) doesn't make us a whole lot better.
And he's dang expensive for 3.5 years. 6 years of Walker and Franklin and Paxton is 18 years of pretty good ballplaying. Is that worth 3.5 of Stanton? OK, so let's say that Paxton explodes his arm...but then the trade is 12 for 3.5.
Bench Ryan, let's see Miller, play Ackley in the OF, quit assuming Smoak is anything but a guy who can hit .260 with some walks (which means you let him be a role player), bring up Walker, let Morse and Morales alternate between 1B/DH. Let's go.
Oh, it is time to move Wedge out, too. He's not the problem, really. But he's not the solution (or "a solution"), either.
Personally, I would think about giving Raul the job for 85+ games. Let him be a playing manager and he DH's (only) vs. righties. Could he do worse than what's happening now?
G's post about teams not winning with a lineup full of 22-25 year olds is probably right, but that's mostly because few teams have a whole bunch of those guys arrive at exactly the same time.
As a complete aside, I would consider giving Peguero another Seattle shot. Or Thames. It doesn't look like Romero is up until Sept. (which I have no problem with). Ackley/Saunders/Guti/one of the guys above would work out in the OF. There isn't a spot for them unless we move Smoak out or DL Morse, but I would invite it, I think. Pegs has improved his EYE over the last three years and still hits homers. Let's see him...or Thames, who has always been a MLB hitter. His career ISO vR is .185, significantly better than Smoak's.
Alas, little chance I think. Too bad.....
moe

The M's would be ill-advised to sell low now on Montero. A hot start next year would go a long ways to restore his value. Keep him in AAA. If he starts to hit, give him a September callup. But let him stew to the point where he reaches the crossroads. Either you put in the hard work to succeed or you fail, kid..

Glad it's good-natured.
I'm not trying to say Polanco and Hanson aren't good or even great prospects - they obviously are. The point I was trying to make is that they are at low level (One JUST got promoted to AA, the other MIGHT be soon) and other prospects can look just as good AND if they do so at a higher level, or for a longer period (which would include NCAA major school time for me for fielding, but they need to show they can hit with wood) there is a presumption they are SURER, not necessarily better. Dominican prospects, in particular, are RAW, and it is hard to tell what you have until they put two or three really good years together. Rather than just focusing on Polanco vs. Morban, let's focus on what a team that's going to get crucified for the trade might try to get back.
First, Miami doesn't NEED OFs. The have Marisnick, Yellich, and Ozuna, all three of which are likely better than either Morban or Polanco. So, any OF they pick up will be a gamble on upside - point to Polanco, but only if they gamble there, rather than on pitching. BUT, they DO need a SS - Hecheverria has not shown he can hit. Dietrich, at 2nd, seems to have. So they will be looking, in the comparison, at whether the guy can stick at SS. In this, point to Miller or Taylor (but especially Taylor) over Hanson, who is reputedly a butcher in the field (he has more errors than 13 - he had, I believe either 16 or 18 several weeks ago when I was looking at errors at SS because Miller had 9 at AA - I then read reviews which characterized him as a butcher and WORSE than Betancourt and maybe suited for LF or DH rather than the IF. EDIT: Hanson has 21 errors in 65 G). So he'd better have that "terrific" (not elite) bat. So far, to me he sounds like a poor-fielding Betancourt. In my opinion, Miami would be better off with Taylor plus a 1B prospect, or in taking Profar from Texas. But Texas does not have the pitching prospects who are "almost-ready" like the Ms. (The three best Pitt pitching prospects are almost-ready, but can they afford to give up two of them to match say, Walker + Maurer)
I am very skeptical that the Pittsburgh system has anyone, even pitchers, who can "blow any Mariner's offer out of the water" - and they'd be foolish to give up Taillon AND Cole or even Heredia, since they don't have a Felix and need every good pitcher they can find. With Felix, Kuma, Erasmo, and the big four, the Ms have more pitchers than rotation spots in the near future. They do have excess to trade from, which the Pirates really do not.
Anyway, the response should have been simpler - as good as Polanco and Hanson might be, they are RAW and a ways away. The Ms can provide guys who are closer and may be close to as good with somewhat less downside risk, if perhaps less upside. If the aim of the Marlins is to get back to winning ASAP, and to cock a snook at their critics (and I believe it is), what Pittsburgh can offer not only doesn't "blow the Ms offer out of the water", but the Ms might provide significantly more value due to less downside risk, and by offering a range of choices which Pittsburgh doesn't have in the areas of need, a better chance for the Marlins to get what they think they want and need.

While I don't subscribe to the legitimizer meme ...
Many people were firmly convinced that Justin Smoak was destined to be that guy.
Smoak at age 22 - had 21 doubles and 12 HRs in the minors (471 PAs)
Nick Franklin at age 19 had 22 doubles and 23 HRs in the minors (578 PAs)
The obvious response to this is that Smoak was rushed up to AAA ... so his power numbers were suppressed. And, when Franklin moved up, his power numbers also dropped.
While a legitimate concern and observation, the underlying foundation principle here is that Franklin was posting truly impressive power numbers at age 19.
When you factor in the age differences, Franklin has been a better long term power projection than Smoak ever was.
In addition, after a (normal) regression in 2012 when he was rushed up to AAA at age 21, Franklin displayed dramatic improvement and adaptation this season. Most of that improvement was manifested in his eye ratio, which had been a modest 48:106 in 2012. In 2013 in Tacoma, it morphed into 30:20. While no one should expect Franklin to continue running an eye above 1 ... the evidence it very strongly pointed toward a player capable of significant adaptation and one who has very clearly either improved his pitch recognition, his plate coverage, or both, during the 2013 season.
Franklin will likely go through some growing pains. But, to date, he has a .492 slugging average ... good enough to lead the entire team in his first 100 MLB PAs.
The evidence that prospect development IS improving can be seen in Seager and Franklin. This does not mean the club is "good" at hitter development, but it is certainly evidence to support the notion they are emerging from the decade long debacle in player development since AROD came up.
Ackley, at this moment, has found his stroke again, and is putting up number in Tacoma eerily similar (and just a hair better), than what Franklin was posting.
Brad MIller is also putting up numbers similar to Franklin's.
My personal view is that Zunino has been rushed and will probably need a return to Tacoma. But, Zunino's 24 HRs in his 398 minor league PAs is also better in raw numbers and ahead of Smoak in terms of age - while having been given a Smoak-like rushed promotion schedule from A ball all the way to the majors with little time to adjust to the steadily increasing difficulty in completion.
Even if Zunino returns to AAA ... there is STRONG evidence that unlike previous years, the odds are better today that the club will be able to help Zunino learn and adjust and that he could come back as a real force at the plate.
The key point here is that the vast majority of prospects, regardless of pedigree, ultimately fail. This is true, even for the clubs that are good at player development. While it is disappointing that Ackley, Smoak and Montero all floundered -- statistically, it is not all that surprising. One was almost certain to fail.
I continue to believe that Ackley will succeed ... even as I continue to believe Smoak and Montero will never meet expectations. But, there are no guarantees.
But, if the core for the Seattle offense for the next decade becomes Seager and Franklin and Zunino rather than Ackley, Smoak and Montero ... then the rebuilding of the farm system will actually be a rousing success.