.
Dr. D sez,
It is amusing that Michael Saunders had exactly 50% of Kyle Seager's K's and BB's, in almost exactly 50% of the games played:
| Player | G | K | BB | OPS+ |
| Seager | 159 | 52 | 118 | 127 |
| Saunders | 78 | 26 | 59 | 128 |
.
Granted, Saunders' plate appearances were 40% of Seager's, not 50%. That's because Saunders was frequently used as a bench player / defensive substitute. But when you have EYE ratios this similar, there may be other similarites, and ... check it out.
| Player | G | K | BB | OPS+ | AVG | OBP | SLG | Remark |
| Seager | 159 | 52 | 118 | 127 | .268 | .334 | .454 | infielder |
| Saunders | 78 | 26 | 59 | 128 | .273 | .341 | .450 | fast on bases |
.
Yes, there are differences that don't show in the above table. But the salient points are:
It isn't a question of whether Saunders may, some day, become good. In 2014 he was already very, very good.
He's a bizarre, ungainly player. His weaknesses are weirdly noticeable. That's why he's underrated. It's much easier to perceive his problems (like his huge strike zone, like his teenager-looking strikeouts and teenager-looking curse words thereafter) than his contributions (like his going 1B-to-3B in eleven strides, like his hitting a 96 MPH jam pitch into the cheaps).
.
Grizzly sez,
MtGrizzly: Disturbing article from Churchill regarding Saunders. Given the quotes from his agent and the M's history of dealing with these types of things, I'll bet he's gone in the off season. http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/10/08/churchill-mariners-lack-communica...
.
I ran across this article independently of you guys, and was thinking, Wow, that's an impactful article from Jason.
How much credibility do you give it?
Churchill is, unquestionably, relaying a scouts' groundswell of season-long sniping at the Mariners about Saunders. That's what Jason is best at: passing on to you --- > what the scouts "groupthink." No disrespect intended.
Zduriencik's thinking is also known. He made some polite, thickly-veiled remark that relays Zduriencik's and McClendon's groundswell of sentiment about Saunders. Which is: "Saunders mightily ticked the Mariners off, in one way or the other." If you don't realize that "doghouses" are a part of sports, you haven't been paying attention.
Zduriencik quite obviously has a deep, dark doghouse, like Snoopy, where you can pull Andrew Wyeth paintings out of the basement of the doghouse. Saunders got in it. End of story. actually, middle of story.
So you have this spitting-fest between Mickey and the M's. You also have the information that scouts think the M's are being ridiculous about it. Those are the known items about the case; you process them as you like.
.......
OK, OK. For what it's worth, here's the Mainframe Crunch on it: I personally am annoyed with the way that Fortune 500 senior execs respond to people who annoy them. Powerful people don't like it when you smirk at them. They won't tolerate it.
The second Mainframe Crunch (MCTM) on it --- > sort of echoes Jason's: here you have one good outfielder, and you missed the playoffs by 1 games because of 9,000 shutouts, and you've got the one good outfielder on the bench because of a personal vendetta? Not exactly Win At All Costs, now is it?
But your mileage may vary. The Saunders-Mariners feud is nuanced, but that's the "doghouse" melodrama we're all enjoying so richly. It has happened 9,000 times before, in every sport under the sun, and will happen 9,000 times more.
.........
Will anybody pay 90c on the dollar for Saunders this winter? You don't normally get 90c for a guy who just had 231 at-bats. So the M's weren't "showcasing" Saunders, either. They mighta been showcasing the Ack Attack...
.
In order for that to be true, you would have to believe that Lloyd and/or Jack decided to punish Saunders for unstated sins...rather than putting the best team possible on the field over the last month of the season.
I don't see any evidence of that from either one of them all year.
It may be that they misjudged their talent...but I find it hard to accept that the cut off their nose to spite their face.
I similarly think Saunders is the one position player who's under-usage seems to stick out. The overuse of basically all other outfielders when it comes down to it is the contrast. Unless he was being rested from nagging injuries during those times of the type we rarely hear about. The whole conditioning thing doesn't sit right with me though. Maybe in the infatuation with Almonte, Lloyd felt the need to downplay in his mind the attributes of Abes greatest competition for CF playing time? You repeat a thing enough times and start to believe it...That doesn't really sound right either.
The doghouse angle does seem likely but unless it was something related to preparation and conditioning that got him there why would that be the message given to the media? To downplay his value to the rest of the league? The Ack showcase makes a bit of sense to me because it's not difficult to foresee a situation where acquisitions basically forced the team to decide between Ackley and Saunders.
I don't know. Just a whole bunch of drama. How about an offseason starting out being about offseason moves instead of what seems like mudslinging at the front office?
either Saunders was in the doghouse or Lloyd is incompetent. putting the best team on the field would mean Saunders in the lineup NOT Denorfia. Saunders can handle himself against LHP. VS LHP he had 262 avg and 352 obp. Idont have Denorfia spits but with the M's he had 195 avg and 256 obp. I like Saunders as the starting RF next year not being platooned
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/mariners/2014/10/09/the-mariners-and-micha...
Lincoln's M's have traded players for less. He really, really, really hates it when these things go public.
I vaguely recall Mac's comments about Saunders going on paternity leave during rehab in Tacoma, getting sick, and then requiring him to restart rehab before returning to the big club. The latter came across as punishment, as in "How could you go on paternity leave during a pennant race?". It seems that Mac just doesn't like him. After Saunders "won" a starting role in ST vs others that played poorly in ST and in April, Mac iced him on the bench. This team could ill afford to bench their best hitting outfielder.
Good stuff.
Some observations: Early in the year the M's (McClendon) were all-in on 4 players: Hart, Smoak and Morrison (as the RF vR platoon guy) and Almonte.
There wasn't any space for Saunders in that situation. None.
McClendon was wrong on three of those guys: Almonte, Smoak and Hart. Each of those guys was a bust. If you really want to look at where we could have gained a single game then look at the use of a terrible Almonte over Saunders in CF for the first month. Inexplicable, is the word.
Morrison was used sparingly through the mid-part of the season, in favor of Smoak and due to injury, but then he got hot and stayed in the line-up, appropriately.
Saunders should have been used more late in the year.....but the Skip was trying to get Hart hot (which was stupid) and we now had Morales and no matter how bad he was, McClendon wasn't sitting him.
So the Skipper was committed early and late to players other than Saunders. I'm willing to bet that the clash now is one of personality and McClendon's view of Saunders' role, which The Condor doesn't agree with.
Hey, I still think Saunders should be in CF. I'm all for using him to get Trumbo, but I would be even more for using The Condor in CF (with Jones) AND getting Trumbo...which means letting Jackson and his nearly $8M go. But there seems to be almost no discussion of that. Jackson is the Skipper's guy from their Detroit days and i'm sure he believes he has something of great value.
But then you could sign your one year RH COF.
But I think the Saunders-Z-McClendon collision happened all the way back in ST when Saunders saw the handwriting indicating a reduced role and did not like it.
Kiss and make up? Unlikely......unless Ackley or Jackson goes. Then the FO could say, "We've loved you all along!" And the Skip could say, "Go lead the league in doubles!"
Is that throughout the season, as he headed into the late innings down 1-0 or tied 2-2, or whatever, and I looked at the batters due up and if I saw Michael Saunders among them, I felt we had a chance. I knew we would get something going. I hope that with Seager, Zunino, even Cano, maybe Ackley, and definitely Morrison in September. I KNEW that with Saunders. Saunders would get on base somehow, and our odds of scoring that run would go up significantly.
Does reality match what I "knew"? Well, in "Close and Late", Saunders had an OPS of 1.052.
I feel there is a Kirk Gibson MVP season in him. I want him to be a Mariner when he has it.
I buy into Lloyd's stance that he's not a 160 game guy. 120 games? Different story.
Kirk Gibson had the same problems:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gibsoki01.shtml
Beware of Tigers casting off such guys. :-)
I shared the belief of many here over the last month of the season that Lylod's lineups were utterly strange and eventually settled on a reason that has nothing to do with Saunders and everything to do with Lloyd. I think he wasn't thrilled with the deadline acquisitions and might have even argued against them. Once they were made, however, he stuck those guys out there come hell or high water.
Seemed to me he was passive-aggresively telling Jack something along the lines of, "So this is what you got?" I think he was arguing for more input. I thought it odd that he kept saying how great it was the M's were competing in the last weeks of the season, as if they should be happy just to be there rather than expecting to win. He was hedging his bets and if they lost he could argue that the club eeded to be bolder this off-season.
Remember the whole thing with Z saying how thrilled he was with the support from the execs on the Morales deal? Maybe this was Lloyd saying that ain't near enough. He might not have even been fully aware of what his own motivation was, And, yes, I play a shrink on television!
Condor is about to jell. Some of the swings he made late in the season suggest to me that the game has slowed for him.
"Not an everyday player" sounds a lot like "not one of our best five SP going forward."
I hope this is just a bungled motivational gambit on the M's part. Saunders seems to have been a good actor for the org and probably deserves more/better consideration.
It's probably worth noting that Saunders is not one of Jack's guys. Other than Felix, most of the folks left over from the Bavasi era have been pushed out of the org, right?
Its fun to keep a running tally of successful major leaguers that Bavasi has drafted. As near as I can tell, these are 1. Doug Fister, 2. Michael Saunders, 3. Brandon Morrow, and 4. Josh Fields. If there are others, please inform. Far and away the two best Bavasi players ever, Fister was a sixth round pick, and Saunders was an eleventh round pick. Morrow and Fields were both first rounders. Calling Morrow and Fields successful major leaguers is a bit of a stretch.
Bavasi was the worst offender for clearing out holdover prospects. The Bavasi trades that cleared out the Mariners crown jewels live in too much infamy to be rementioned. We can be glad that Bavasi didn't trade Felix.
This is a top notch conspiracy theory. McClendon seems to have a player evaluation methodology that was lacking with Wedge. Wedge just seemed to manage, and seemed to leave player acquisition to Zduriencik. The only GM type statement that I can remember from the Wedge era was that he wanted some fast players, and didn't want more than one or two base cloggers. In contrast, McClendon is opinionated about everything, and he has the full power of the press. I think Zduriencik is afraid to make any move that McClendon would consider horse (manure). For an example of McClendon's GM influence, McClendon stated at his introductory press conference or therabouts that 8-9 starters are necessary to have a good season. Before 2014, Zduriencik traded away Mariners starting pitchers, such as Morrow and Fister, and he never had reserve starting pitchers for when things eventually went wrong. Fast forward to the 2014 end of year press conference, and Zduriencik is treating the 8-9 pitcher rule as if it were an immutable rule of baseball. This is heartening, as it is evidence that Zduriencik listens to his staff and evolves as a GM.
A point against the conspiracy theory that McClendon was subtly reproaching Zduriencik for making only mediocre midseason trades, is Mathers' insinuation to Bob and Groz that all serious trade discussions for great mid season players started with Paxton, Walker and Deej. We know that in McClendon's mind, Paxton has greatness written all over him, and Walker is pretty good, but needs to figure a few things out before he's pretty darn good. I don't think McClendon faults upper managment for not trading some of his favorite players, or mortaging the future of the organization, because 1. Pitching is the name of the game; 2. McClendon thinks his public approval ratings are tied to how well the Mariners pitch; and 3. McClendon likes his job and wants to keep it.
That sounds about right to me. If you want to change the adjective to 'ill-conceived', 'pointless', or whatever, that probably works, too.
Michael Saunders just finished his sixth season in a Mariners uniform. Anyone can look up the results.
Does that frustrate the M's? Probably.
Does that frustrate Saunders? Almost certainly.
I remember one other quote Z used that day...something along the lines of, "...do we want Michael Saunders to be a big part of this thing moving forward? Absolutely...". (Actual words may be a little different, but that's the gist).
How do you help him get there? Not with the comments chosen, I think. 'Bungled'.
C'mon. What do you do about the input you're getting from the community of scouts? Does nobody understand where that grass-level anger comes from?
I'm not busting Zduriencik's chops here. But to say that Saunders never did annoy the Mariners in any way, and it was all just in-game strategy. What?
.......
As a minor side issue, you're also not reading between the lines as to what Zduriencik is willing to say about Saunders' DL time: that Saunders is to blame for it, and OF COURSE Zduriencik would not blame Saunders for that UNLESS --- > Saunders failed to follow team recommendations.
.......
As a minor minor side issue, what do you think it implies when a player's agent is willing to go public to build sentiment for his side of a feud?
How can you disagree that there's a feud going on here?! Do you also disagree that the 49ers and Seahawks aren't best buds? And how can there be a feud, with the above components, with no first cause, no player actions that alienated the ballclub and no doghouse?
.......
Slap me silly this think tank is rarely so obtuse. ;- )
.
It's the only thing that makes sense. It just seems there's info we are lacking. Is it straight up the way one side or the other is portraying things? Probably not. Is it more positioning from one or both sides? Why? Contact negotiations from the Mariners viewpoint it would seem like a new development from them. Or have I missed or forgotten similar posturing with previous arb guys?
Like you say, it doesn't make sense for the Mariners to point to physical maintenance unless it has been an issue that has been discussed. But the agent claiming no communication on those levels having taken place doesn't make sense if it has. What can him and Saunders gain by this track? The Mariners know the truth. If it's posturing for an extra maybe million dollars is it worth it to burn the bridge with the team that drafted and developed you? The team that he claims he grew up as a fan of? The team he will suit up for a couple more years unless he is traded?
If one side is flat out lying, what motivation actually makes sense to support their actions? I don't see one. Maybe I am being obtuse, but I really am trying to consider everything.
Sadly egos eventually become an acid to relationships. I have spent 30 years working with people and....dog house, left over (what arrogance and stupidity)....part of being in the position of leadership with ongoing relationships is the ability to breed confidence with those around you (mind you, I realize that I don't care if my surgeon has good bed side as that is not an ongoing relationship hopefully). I am way on the outside here only catching only a little glimpse and statements from afar, but it seems like Z, even McClendon, need to realize that words mean something. These are clubhouse issues I believe. Talk through it there and it shouldn't be front page from the press room. Those can make or break relationships. Okay...that has nothing with being able to stay healthy or hit a curve or hit the corner of the plate but over a long season....as Moe said above, there is your one game right there. I hate to see close to great season become a soap opera.
Of course, here in CO you have Tulo bemoaning another losing season along with Gonzo and they blame the management. Did they both forget management spent $$$ on both of them prior to arbitration years and they each sat a good part of the last season....again. Way to look in the mirror guys!
Funny how a great sport can make such little sense at times! Thankful for some good common sense on here!!
Go Dawgs!
Well yeah - once two parties start talking at each other through the press instead of with one another, I would say that it's getting to the feud state. It'll be interesting to see where it goes from here. I can see Saunders hitting 30 HR and stealing 20 bases in a Cardinal uniform :(
And, again, my take is that it started in ST.
McClendon is an interesting guy. There is not much "in between" with the guy: When he sets his mind to something (Almonte, Hart, Smoak) he sets his heart as well. And the heart moves more slowly away from those guys than the mind.
But once he's done with them (Amonte, Smoak) he's done with them.
He set his mind on Morales (which made sense after the pick-up) and stuck with him late in the season.
I think he set his mind "against" Saunders because of Almonte-Smoak-Hart. He never really moved off of that even when those guys collapsed (all of them), although Saunders' injuries didn't help.
Doc, I'm wondering if Saunders then didn't tell McClendon to stuff it (in one way or the other), when it came to rehab. If Condor was upset about the role (4th guy) that he was given, then maybe he wasn't having any of what Doc McClendon was prescribing.
However it plays out, he either is a starter or gone. There is no in-between. And since we will add a RH COF bat, if he stays that likely means that Ackley is gone (because Jackson is one of McClendon's "own" guys).
But Bavasi should probably get credit for Shin-Soo Choo and Asdrubal Cabrera too. And if Josh Fields and Brandon Morrow count than Jose Lopez and Yuniesky Betancourt probably do too.
Oh Adam Jones and Chris Tillman too
I guess that doesn't change the main point though, not a lot of talent acquired by the Bavasi regime. And most was traded away for not much.
But I sure hope you're wrong.
One of the ways this team has consistently failed under the GMZ regime has been a persistent failure to cultivate depth all over the roster.
Here's a crazy idea: even if we mange to acquire a hulking right handed right fielder don't trade any of the other outfielders we do have. Actually carrying four decent options would be a good thing, not a problem to be solved.
It's hard to to see any of the current options as anything other than question marks in one way or another. I'm pretty confident Saunders is good, but I'm less confident we can count on him for 150 games (though I do think his injury proneness, taken as a given by many, is WAY overblown). I honestly have no idea at all what to expect from Ackley and Jackson going forward. They could both be four win players, or they could be replacement level guys. I wouldn't be shocked either way.
So how about building some redundancy into the roster? Have an option if Ackley is brutally bad to start the season for two months again. Get Saunders some ABs at DH to help keep him fresh. Somebody can cover first when LoMo pulls a hammy. Saunders won't kill you in center for a game or two when you want to rest Austin Jackson. There are plenty of plate appearances to go around if Lloyd is smart about it.
Paying Michael Saunders $3m next year even of he's only good for 120 games (and I'd happily take the over there) is a steal. The idea that this has so much outfield talent that one more acquisition would force them to move one of their other guys is just totally crazy.
I'm tired of this team assuming everything will work out and acting shocked when people get hurt. Maybe try to build a more resilient roster this time around? A roster that won't have James Jones starring every day the first time something goes wrong.
Players can push back against managers, but Saunders evidently did something way over the line in McClendon's and/or Zduriencik's eyes.
.......
Maybe Saunders was 100% right to do so. Wasn't it a coach outside the org who turned around his career? Maybe Saunders truly believed he'd hurt himself, following the M's RX on rehab.
........
In fairness, Z's counter is: I notice your way didn't work, Mickey. You sure were unavailable a lot.
........
I think you got it here, bro'. As usual.
left to attend his daughter's wedding in the middle of a playoff race. Surely they are not using a double standard in evaluating absences? This whole episode reeks of stupidity.
I'll co-sign on this. At a very basic level, it all comes down to roster construction. How do you get the best performance out of 25 slots? This is what Pat Gillick understood.
I think someone tweeted or commented on LL that one thing that stuck out early in the season was that Lloyd made some comment about Saunders playing too hard, a la Bryce Harper.
If it's true, I can understand the sentiment, but is it really something to get into a media spat over?
We're talking about a talented 5-tool player with upside and we're going to complain all day about him running into walls?
In any case, this is the style of management the M's use that really irks me.
Lou and Gillick were excellent at putting together rosters that seemed to be able to self-heal or cover for weaknesses of other roster components.
The same can be said of the boys next door; the Seahawks use their roster with finesse, jigsaw puzzling together players and match-ups based on the skill sets they have and acquire. The result seems to maximize their effectiveness in their scheme.
Z/Management & Lloyd seem to be more best-case-scenario guys as opposed to being able to work with the pieces they're given.
The scheme seems to start at "baseball players are X", they only go for guys who are X and throw their hands up when they can't get their guy X at their prices.
And that's what makes me skittish about the M's chances in 2015.
Not to mention the last decade has been full of bad bets and feuding that seems to be from all over the place, whether it's the Cruz near-miss and this Saunders thing...