Skip-O-Vision Translations

Mainframe readouts, kibitzing, and shtick on various quotes from The Fearless Leaders:

Capt Jack:

I would never want to do something that would mis-represent what we are trying to accomplish. We want this organization to move forward. We owe it to the fans, the people who are putting their heart and soul every single night into this club. It's important our players understand that....

What we need to do here is get this club healthy. That's very, very important. We need to get players to buy into playing at least to their level of ability. There were players here who under-achieved, no question about that. I'm trying to send a message any way I can to come to spring training ready to compete.

There IS such a thing as a pro sports front office that gets across the message that excellence is expected. When I grew up, Steinbrenner installed this on the Yankees; Al Davis installed it in the Raiders; Sandy Alderson installed it for the Oakland A's.

And, of course, there is such a thing as a manager / GM who loses wherever he goes.  Often this is the "player's manager," the guy who wants to be chums with the Vets, but there are many loser templates.

One of Dr. D's crusades has been to preach a belief in Chemistry. There are players who expect to lose. What is interesting here is that Capt. Jack's stream-of-consciousness connects these two things:

1. Ballplayers who do not have their game faces on

2. Ballplayers who spend a lot of time in the training room

Did everybody get that? ... are you curious as to which Mariners he's talking about? Check the games played / pitched column.

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

Capt Jack again:

"The promise I'd make to them is we're going to put a product on the field they're going to be proud of. Is it going to happen over night? It's going to take a little time. If we're lucky, and some things fall into place, and some people have exceptional years, then it could happen sooner rather than later.

Wup! Slipped there, Jack. :- ) It's a good slip there.

It could happen when? It could happen if Jeff Clement hits 37 homers ... this year. Jack's remarks about "it happening" and "if people have exceptional years" have no meaning, unless he's quietly thinking in terms of making a run during the year that these exceptional years occur.

The more reason to get halfway serious about 2009, and get Jason Ellison the deuce out of left field, and to get an actual ML #3-4 hitter into the dugout.

All you good amigos swooning over the backup CF in LF, have yer asked which Mariner is a #3 or #4 hitter in the big leagues? Or have you asked which team last fought in The Clone Wars when it had a leadoff hitter and everybody else was a #7 hitter?

But make sure everybody can field their position, guys. That's the absolute. Not the concept of having a Man who can drive runners in if they happen to get on base.

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

Capt Jack on why teams might get an All-Star on a low-salary, ONE-year deal:

Good question. A lot of it is what's happening in this country right now. Everyone is a little cautious right now. The other issue is the economics of player's contracts. We're in same boat as everyone else. You'd like to go out and bring a player or two in. But you have agree on two things -- dollars spent and length of contract. There's a degree of reality that has set in with the current market and the economic times we're in. I think some of this is going to fall into place as we move forward.''

OK, they agree. They'll play for peanuts, for two years. Still no contracts. :- )

Jack's talking the company line all the way here, as opposed to what he really thinks.

I could see economic uncertainty in the USA cutting a guy's contract from 5/$60m to 4/$40m. I can't see it cutting his contract to 1/$6m. SOMETHING is going on here.

IMHO it's very likely collusion, and will cost MLB dearly somewhere down the road. But there is an intriguing alternative, and that is the concept that on an industrywide level, GM's are buying into the extreme-defense arguments that are so popular this winter.

That to me would be a very bemusing development. In that event, the Moneyball tactic would be obvious: buy up the guys who can hit but can't play defense. QED.

Cheers,

Dr D

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

image:  http://tropicsparadise.net/images/JohnnyDepp/CaptainJackSparrow-POTC2-1.jpg

Comments

1
KingCorran's picture

Abreu.
Dunn? Okay... I'd do that too. Maybe I should prefer Dunn. But for some reason, I prefer Abreu. *shrugs*
At any rate, I hear the man is willing to consider an 'Ibanez-esque' contract. 3x10MM for a lefty OBP machine in Safeco? I can dig that.
Plus, the high second-round pick you lose for signing him is simply deferred... should ol' Bobby regress to a Type B in three years (I can't see him going lower), your comp pick is going to be higher than what you lost. You still have 4 top-50 picks this year (assuming you don't sign Mr. Fields), so very little harm done. Z's scouts can probably still get their guy. =)

2

Is that what Abreu's come to? 3x10? That's like a Jarrod Washburn deal. Sign 'im up.
I appreciate the newfound enthusiasm over defense, but it has become an Islamic-style absolute: we don't want 100 runs created, even for 1x$8m, if the guy isn't a good mitt.
Oh yeah, no offense to Moslems, who are relatively flexible. ;- )

3
Sandy - Raleigh's picture

Three years for Abreu?!? Sorry, I'll pass. Granted, its an absolute steal getting a 35-year-old Abreu compared to a 37-year-old Ibanez. (Then again, I think the Ibanez contract was an absolute disaster -- especially considering what Burrell accepted).
My problem here is years and age.
From age 24-30 Abreu was a 145 OPS+ guy.
From 31-34, he's been 120ish.
Maybe he holds at 120 for 3 years. It's possible. I'm skeptical. It's sorta like the hitting version of giving 3 years to Batista. (Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time).
I'm also not convinced that his 20-25 point decline we've seen was actually age-related. Anybody who saw a major drop AFTER the 2004 season, I have to consider the concept that they were juicing. While I know some players age earlier than others, the age 30 plunge doesn't feel right to me in this case. The concept that his aging hasn't shown up yet is NOT an encouragement for me. Rather, it is a case of if he hasn't ALREADY adjusted to getting older, then we actually have no idea how he will adjust. (Worst case is Sexson, obviously).
Based on my views of age management, ANY hitter age 34 and over should not get more than 1 year. While Abreu could pull an Ibanez and put together a stellar 3 seasons -- I think he's actually more likely to have a Sexsonesque plunge in production than Sexson was (at the time he was signed). A 1-year deal with an option year? I could live with that. But, I'd still rather see the club give Wlad a legitimate shot for a year than pretty much punt on him completely for an aging star on the precipice of decline.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.