This is an attitude move. Danny Hultzen will not reassure Mariner roster mainstays that the Mariners care about the back of the rotation...he won't make Justin Smoak feel like the team is going to be "in it" tonight if Felix isn't pitching, and he won't give the Mariners big innings late in the season where isn't used to pitching...at least not yet. Danny Hultzen is a fine pitching prospect, and I have no problem using Maurer's rotation spot to swivel in some guys and get looks...but you can't have TWO rotation spots used for "roster flexibility" and keep a team that is desperately seeking its firm identity and just got mauled by a AAA ballclub confident enough to reach its potential.
Adding Aaron Harang was the RIGHT thing to do here. I firmly believe that. Adding anyone who can make a team feel like it controls its own destiny and instead of watching helplessly while youngsters who aren't ready get their brains bashed in by the blinkin' Houston Astros is the right thing to do.
Do you want to win in 2013? I sure as heck do. If that means acquiring a hanger-on with decent deception and a declining but still-acceptible toolbox of pitches...I absolutely do that.
.
=== My-Pivots.com ===
............
In MLB(TM), Innings Eater buy orders are "triggered" when a GM becomes authentically scared about an incumbent pitcher's performance.
One way for a pitcher to "trigger" the Stop-Loss order is to get wasted by the worst lineup he'll ever face. In that event, he may "trigger" the order only 10 innings into the season. If I were Blake Beavan, I'd be authentically scared about what this means for my career, for this to occur two starts in.
Dr. D questions (look up the definition of "question" as a verb) whether Blake Beavan is going to get future First Innings in Seattle, after that unfortunately-memorable Astro game.
So, of course, the shelf life of this post will retain its usual four hours, after Brandon Maurer turns out to be the one actually removed from the rotation ...
.
=== Gauging the SLIPPAGE ===
The financial "slippage" in your order :- ) occurs when your Stop-Loss maneuver fails to execute as planned -- nobody will buy your stock when you want them to. Like when Aaron Harang delivers 2 of 10 quality starts, rather than 6 of 10 quality starts. Is that what's about to happen?
...........
As we all know, Aaron Harang is a generic MLB(TM) sinker-slider pitcher who, at this point in his career, is h(ar)anging on for another season in the sun. As all SSI readers know, Dr. D's very, very, VERY least-favorite pitcher is the sinker-slider pitcher.
Think Kameron Loe, add fifty pounds and an Eeyore disposition. Oh yeah baby. I'll take a dozen, and give 'em wings!
...........
Harang's motion is comically reduced, almost Jim Kaat-like -- he throws like he's having a catch with his sister. And therein lies the Hidden Element to his game, the component to his skill set that (undoubtedly) caused Jack Zduriencik to pick him over other SP's. Say, Jeremy Bonderman.
In September 2012, Harang and Ross Detweiler were considered THE luckiest pitchers in the major leagues. (Hellickson and Jered Weaver were edited off this list for sound reasons.)
But Zduriencik (presumably), and I (in reality), question whether all of that ERA luck was due to purely random BABIP factors. (Look up the definition of "question" as a verb.) Possibly some of his "luck" was due to placing the ball in slightly better areas of the strike zone than Blake Beavan places it.
Look: Aaron Harang will go out there, throw his little darts on the black, and make the other team beat him.
If he's got Devon White in CF and Ozzie Smith at SS (which he does), he might cobble 6 QS in a couple of months, and prevent things from turning really ugly.
.
=== Keep the Gloves Above the Belt, Gentlemen ===
Sure, Dr. D would prefer Jon Garland to Aaron Harang for 6-8 starts, salary and entitlement not considered. But he does not consider it fair to hold Jon Garland against Capt Jack in this situation, because:
- Beavan's collapse, and the stop-loss requirement, emerged after Garland was gone.
- Garland demanded a guarantee that he be given a secure, long-term job in the rotation, at a good salary.
On March 24, 2013, SSI did pull the plug on Blake Beavan in its When Pitching Coaches Cry article, saying "If it's my team, I just saw everything I needed to see. Blake Beavan is having all kinds of trouble with his transition, and I have zero reason to watch these 16-hit performances in Safeco in April."
But even given that, Dr. D won't say he tolja so on this one. He concedes it to have been reasonable to try Beavan in the rotation to begin the season. Precisely because you do have roster agility. Why would you guarantee 30 starts to Jon Garland, with the SP's you've got pounding on the door? I'm glad they did NOT.
.
=== GET OVER YOURSELF, Dept. ===
However, Dr. D does question (look up the definition of "question" as a verb) the reluctance to use Danny Hultzen. So let's say the nightmare scenario occurs, and you have to ... GASP!! send Hultzen back down to the minors!?
Big Fat Hairy Deal.
Which raises the question, "Get over yourself." I think that ship has sailed, as far as this organization (and us) claiming that it's too smart to make a mistake in judgment every now and then. Time to simply start taking advantage of what org strengths you have -- roster agility.
I don't get why it's considered so, um, embarrassing to call up Danny Hultzen -- even if you wind up sending him back down -- whereas the things that have actually occurred lately are considered within the dignity of MLB(TM) bearing.
Why so prreeciousss about our rep on this particular point? I think our mystique was left on the field against Houston, wasn't it?
.
=== Gratuitious Sweet Lou Mention ===
Bill James once published an essay on MLB managers, measuring them by the number of SP's they moved into and out of the rotation once their ERA's were high. Some managers just let 5.25 ERA starters make their next 20 starts. Lou Piniella is the other extreme; he's had clubs that tried 17 starters during a season. He did anything he could to fix a problem, and Right Now.
It sent a message, that Excellence Was Expected, that poor performance was not acceptable.
I'm glad that Zduriencik is showing some urgency about the back of his rotation; I've seen Mariners orgs watch things like this happen and shrug.
Comments
I'd like to give GMZ a mulligan for 2012 and pull a stop loss on Noesi after 2 or 3 bad outings instead of, what, 15 or 16?
If Hultzen has to go back down...then we've wasted 2 bad starts on Beavan, a few more on Hultzen, a few more on Maurer...and we still don't have a stop-loss. THAT is the big hairy deal, Doc. When you grow 2 bad starts into 10 or 15 trying to let a kid prove himself while you have assembled a team that can win NOW...TODAY...and you get perceived as not doing enough to get them there and give them a chance...then that is a big hairy deal.
That Harang-for-Beavan is comforting and reassuring, and Hultzen is not, then ... okay, yeah, that would be a good take.
I wonder if that's accurate. It's certainly a provocative thought. Maybe Geoff can chime in.
Harang = reinforcements to the locker room and decisive action. "We believe in you guys (well not YOU, Beavan, you are banished!) and we want you to succeed. We're not gonna let some borderline pitchers or raw kids derail our season in April, no sir. Established Veteran X, known for his big face and his good years several seasons ago, has arrived to help. Now go out there and kick tail!"
Hultzen = sign of panic. "You know how we didn't trust this kid in Spring Training? Well, even though we didn't think he could beat out Beavan for the rotation, we're now going to reluctantly go back to him. And he's had 2 good games in the minors so that'll probably work. Pay no attention to the Noesi disaster from last year, this isn't anything like that. And shake Loe's hand on his way out of town, woudja?"
Once Hultzen has established his wunderkind potential, or is replacing another kid (Maurer) then he'll be fine. If they wanted a replacement today, though... then one of the Tacoma Kids was not gonna be it.
~G
Well said, G
You have to think about this from the prospective of the players. If you're going to boot someone off your roster...it is critical to a young team like this one that you do it with clear purpose and that the guy you're getting be someone they trust right away.
Ackley, Montero, Seager and Smoak have all failed, in the small sample that we have so far, to show much of anything. If this club is going to "WIN NOW," that's GOT to change, and soon. I mean, other than Saunders that's the YOUNG CORE that everything depends on. And Saunders just put himself out of the lineup for who knows how long. It's only April 11th, and every year a bunch of good MLB players start poorly, but frankly that doesn't comfort me very much right now. Jack's future depends on a young core that actually produces; they must move from promise to production. Get AFTER IT, guys!
Aaron Harang, and his ilk, are exactly why JZ was unwilling to give Garland his guaranteed rotation spot. JZ knows there are similar pitchers out there to be had for a song. Why guarantee a slot to one when you can pick up another later if needed. Now we owe Harang nothing and can swap him out whenever the kids are ready.
The question is, 'who do you trust?'.
At this point, the trouble is two fold because you can't just bail on the kids without that having an impact on their development either. Sure, you can say, 'you're not ready', but that can also have as much impact since the inverse of saying 'we don't trust you'.
With the batters, I think the M's need to demote Ackley and Smoak if this continues through the end of April. Both have options and they should be used at this point.
Seager has had the most success at the MLB level so far, so it's only natural that you'd more or less try to 'get him going' as opposed to 'fixing' him.
In contrast, it's interesting that the M's appear to only value Beavan as a 5/Swing, which is rather refreshing.
Captain Jack may have chosen this as an opportunity to both supply a current need and spur those who are under-performing to greater effort. What year into the rebuild is this? It seems like forever (even though I know that's not true). But, perhaps, maybe, possibly, just a teensy little bit, Jack feels he can't afford to assume that another carpet level season will be enough to maintain his job security. Ergo --> Loe-go --> No go? ---> You-go.
Regardless if I'm reading the tea-leaves correctly -- when I read about Harang, I felt some small bit of comfort that the M's weren't content to simply play the hand they were holding. Good choice or not, at least they're trying.
*grins*
Guys like Chavez made Wells expendable. M's are willing to search for lightening in a bottle (Bay returning to the form of his prime) rather than keep low-ceiling Wells, for whom equivalent replacements are readily available.
And this kind of thinking I wholeheartedly approve of. Endy Chavez is perfectly fine as a fifth outfielder