1
I keep repeating this, but what do you do with Saunders? Hes a man without a spot in the outfield once Ackley arrives.
Beating the House
I/O: Zduriencik says, on Baker's site, that Ackley will probably be an impact player in the major leagues.
"We feel he's a player who's going to bat in the middle of our lineup for years to come.''
And on MLB.com, Capt. Jack sez,
"When we selected Dustin, we knew he was a special player and a special person," Zduriencik said. "We are excited for him to join or organization and can't wait to see him in a Mariners uniform."
.
CRUNCH1: This is an interesting projection that Zduriencik puts on him: that Ackley is more likely than not, to be an impact player in the big leagues.
Capt Jack does not simply say, "We're happy to have him and look forward to the future," the way M's brass did after (say) Clement and Aumont and Fields were selected. He is speaking, and acting, like he actively plans on having Ackley hit #2 or #3 or #4 in Safeco, very soon.
The Mariners' signals on Ackley should not be overlooked or minimized.
They are decidedly NOT speaking of Ackley, or acting re: Ackley, the way teams usually do about first-rounders! (For example, the Mariners drafted super-signable players with ALL of their other high picks, so as to get Ackley in.)
.
CRUNCH2: Zduriencik's projection of Ackley directly contradicts Dr. Detecto's.
My own rule-of-thumb is that a Grade A prospect has a 30% chance of impacting the big club. Not an 80% chance: a 30% chance.
And that 30% chance I allow, usually assumes that a player is in AAA and ripping it up there, with only one more step to take. (Exceptions are made for the Ken Griffey Jr's and Stephen Strasburgs of the world.)
Yet here Zduriencik is, obviously projecting a chance far above 30% for a player who is, in effect, a AA ballplayer.
.
CRUNCH3: D-O-V's first take on Dustin Ackley was that he had a much higher % chance of success than all of the other draftees, except Strasburg. Not a higher peak: a higher % chance of climbing the mountain in front of him.
The minor reason that the odds are with him, and against the house, is that he is left-handed, with good strike zone control, and a college player. He'll have the platoon advantage. He's not a 130/40 EYE player who might have fatal flaws. He's not a high school kid you have to visualize.
It's also because he is reported to be Edgar-, Ichiro-special with the bat. And we've read in many places that Ackley could have serious power.
I guess when a draftee is projected towards a .400 OBP, we have to figure 20 homers or else we are cheering in the press box? But this is a guy who broke an aluminum bat hitting a grand slam, and a guy that Keith Moreland says has power to ALL fields.
People comp Ackley to Ventura, but I wonder if the Mariners aren't thinking more in terms of a Brian Giles (HR), a Bobby Abreu (2B & SB), or Jim Edmonds (All) type OBP force.
When a player like this comes up -- this personality, this all-around smooth-and-silky talent -- the boyhood hero I think of is Fred Lynn. Incognito, I'll be hoping for signs that Ackley's game is going to echo Lynn's.
Lynn, coming into the AL in the early 70's, didn't look a lot different than Ackley does now. There is huge upside for this skill set; a 21-year-old doesn't have to look like Adam Dunn in order to have a path to the HOF.
...................
We'll all settle for Ventura, but the quote I liked best was the CWS player marvelling that you can't throw the ball by him. Reminded me of Edgar's presence at the plate.
.
I/O: Capt Jack sez, per Baker,
The GM was asked whether putting Ackley on the 40-man roster was a key to getting the deal done.
Zduriencik paused to consider the question, then said: "I think the key was Dustin's desire to play,'' he said. "That's the key."
.
CRUNCH: In other words, if it's up to Boras, Ackley's not taking the final offer.
The Mariners took Ackley's personality into consideration, and their judgment of his personality paid off for them on Monday.
Cheers,
Dr D
Comments
2
Maybe Sandy can tell us what good organizations do, when young talent starts throwing elbows for playing time. LOL.
The Braves have generally let their blue-chippers play an extra year in AAA, but that's not an option (heh) for Ackley, and now it's not for Saunders, really.
3
Real quick here, we're going to find out why a team with a talent pipeline has to play Stars & Scrubs. The M's could play Ackley at 2B, Lopez at 3B but then Tuiasosopo is blocked either at 3B or LF. So if you had any way to deal (say) Lopez and Saunders and Halman for a really premium LF banger, great --- but then the cyber-crowd goes bananas at your WAR/$ loss. :- )
Clement for Jack Wilson was a really nice talent conversion. That pounded the lump out of the pillow at 1B/DH while moving resources over to SS/2B. Bra-Vo.
S & S is going to be critical if Capt Jack keeps the talent backing up into the parking lot. So far, cyber-Seattle hasn't really "gotten" S & S because it hasn't really seen a 14-to-make-8 roster jam. Then, overnight, it will dawn on people why Adam Jones, Chris Tillman and a reliever, for a monster ace SP, is so desirable.
4
Regarding Saunders - he plays LF for me, with Ackley at 2B, and Lopez at 3B, Matt Tuiasosopo sharing time at LF and 3B -- and then three of the four will rise to the top (with perhaps Lopez being traded).
If Ackley can play the infield, that's where he's moving for me. All of the permutations -- over the unforseeable next 5 years -- are easier when you have an All-Star (if that's what he's going to be) at a glove position.
I don't think anybody knows what the best 9-man lineup is with Ackley, Saunders, Tui .... Carp & other young players ... but Ackley, 2B makes all variations better in the long term.
.................
If Ackley's going right to LF, then I guess Saunders has about 100-300 more AB's to show he's an impact player, or he gets Balentien'ed out of here.
5
It doesn't sound like Z is considering Ackley at 2B though.
If Ackley's your LF, what the heck are you doing with Saunders? You're better off building his value in AAA and then trading him this offseason before he loses his value as a guy adjusting at the big league level.
With Ackley's timeline at April '11 at the LATEST, Saunders needs to be dealt IMO for piece that fits at the big league level.
6
What Seattle fans have forgotten ... for a player like McLemore to play 140 games a season, SOMEBODY is getting a day off 140 times a year. The problem is NOT Ackley or Saunders. That only seems to be a problem for an organization that became so fixated on the 9 starters that if someone wasn't playing 158 games a season, they were a wimp.
Braves - 1991 - their worst-to-first season ... Lonnie Smith 122 games, Gant 154, Justice, 109, Nixon 124. Four OFs, for three spots, and ALL played more than 100 games. ALL got more than 400 ABs. And in the NL, there isn't a DH slot to create "half-days-off".
The Angels in 2009 had Vlad, Torii, Rivera and Matthews ALREADY on the roster, and went out and ADDED Abreu. They didn't view this as a PROBLEM. They viewed this as a SOLUTION. If you've got 3 OF slots and a DH slot, then you've got enough PT for *FIVE* players to split, while all playing "full time". Of course, when Vlad and Torii were ailing, there was some PT shifting, which is ANOTHER reason why having that flexibility as a PLANNED part of roster construction is vastly preferable to having to adjust on the fly.
In fairness to Hargrove, the Bavasi clubs were built WITHOUT depth. They "wished" they had AAAA players on the bench. So, some of the Hargrove play-til-you-drop mentality may have been forced upon him. But, mostly, it was the mindset that you've got THESE 9 guys as starters, and your bench are simply guys who are here if someone gets hurt. THAT mindset is what makes the Ackley/Saunders situation "appear" to be problematic. It's not. MLB managers have been cycling 4 bodies thru three OF slots for more than a century, and since the AL thinks pitchers shouldn't have to risk their OWN necks after throwing bean balls, in the AL, you've got 4 slots to cycle 5 guys thru. If a manager can't handle that, he shouldn't be allowed to play OOTP5, much less be paid as a major leaguer.
What baffles ME is that the mindset seems to be, "What if BOTH of these guys turn out to be really, really good?" (This is a PROBLEM?!? Here, let me take your lottery winnings off you, so you don't have all those headaches associated with counting your money).
In truth, there is a very real possibility that one or both will NOT turn out to be productive. Guess what? That ISN'T the upside position. Clement was supposed to be hitting .800 for the Ms in 2009, wasn't he? EVERY prospect is a gamble ... even Strasburg. Just because the odds are better for some doesn't mean that there are any guarantees. If Strasburg turns out to be the next Brien Taylor, MLB will not award Washington 15 wins in compensation for their 15 million outlay.
If Ackley and Carp and Saunders ALL hit .800 in 2010, *THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM*. (It is highly unlikely, of course). If Ackley and Carp and Saunders ALL hit .600 in 2010 ... THAT is a problem. But, this is why good organizations work to find guys (and keep them around), like LaHair. Sometimes those AAAA players actually fix those holes in their games and work out. Just ask Ibanez.
The DOWNSIDE of everyone working out is putting together a Saunders/Vargas/French package to get somebody like Halladay when it will really help.
Wak got a rep early in the season for riding his starters like Hargrove. But, at the time, the bench was very, very thin talent wise. When the bench was upgraded from Wlad and Cedeno to Hannahan and Langerhans, PT started to get more fluid. No reason to believe that Wak cannot take advantage of having "too many" productive bats.
7
Gosh, when Ryan Anderson and Clint Nageotte hit the rotation we won't have room for that Meche guy. :-)
Sorry, in fun. Actually, although it doesn't maximize his value, Ackley is accomplished at first base. Ichiro in his late 30s might be used differently. No one is locked into the DH role. Seems to me like there are enough moving parts.
I think you're right that Ackley would be Biggio-ish ("Biggionic?") at 2b, but Z doesn't seem to want to go there, and I think that's fine -- mainline the guy's bat into the lineup 'cause that's where it's needed.
Also a quibble: Ackley has better wheels than most of your comps. 19-of-25 SB in 68 games not by accident. Watch the video.
A lefty Edgar with speed? What is that if not a poor man's Gwynn? Then I looked at Abreu's stats in his prime. Whoa. I had no idea he ran off a string of seasons like that without a whiff of an MVP or superstardom.
8
Found this interesting web chat from 2005 that Zduriencik had after the '05 draft. I specifically looked this up, since I thought they're might be some comparable thoughts with how Z. thought of Ryan Braun as opposed to Ackley. The link's at the bottom, but here are the more notable parts:
brewerfreak: Will Braun play third base or will you guys move him to the outfield?
Zduriencik: We have every intention of playing Ryan at third base. We have seen this player a lot this year and we have seen the progress he has made from the transition from shortstop to third base, and you have to be impressed with what he has done. Again, it takes time any time a player switches positions. The positive here is that he is a very good athlete, he has played third base all year and he certainly has the skills to become an everyday Major League third baseman. He will get every opportunity to succeed as a third baseman in our Minor League system.
cmow: Does the Minor League success of Rickie Weeks, a college draft pick, have any impact on selecting a college player like Braun at No. 1?
Zduriencik: Ryan Braun will be Ryan Braun. Rickie Weeks will be Rickie Weeks. Again, you take the best player that you feel is the best selection for the Milwaukee Brewers at this point in time. In all of our assessments and looking at the big picture, as well as his talent, this pick made sense. I have to get back to work. There's a lot going on here, but I appreciate all of your questions.
http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20050609&content_id=...
9
I really don't get the "oh my God, there might be a surplus of OF talent on the big club so we have to dump players now" stance. Ackley has some time before he's ready.
For all we know, his elbow will start barking at him after 80 games in the OF and they will have to move him to a different position. For all we know, Saunders will flame out and be nothing more than 4th OF material. Or Ichiro will announce that at the end of his contract, he will be moving back to Japan. Maybe Ackley will tear it up in CF and Z will trade Gutz for a king's ransom in 2012.
Too many variables in play to do anything but get the kid in uniform and let him play, IMHO. Jack does not seem inclined to move him out of CF until/unless he can't handle the position.
10
I agree. We have four talented outfielders now in the organization and one is approaching 36 years of age, one just signed and will be in the minors for a year or so, and another has about 50 ML at bats.
Let things play out for another year before going crazy about who stays and who goes.
Maybe Saunders has a great 2010, Ackley proves he can play an above average CF, and Gutierrez becomes trade bait as he gets more expensive in 2011. Who knows at this point.
The "what happens to Saunders" debate if probably a good discussion one year from now.
11
And wasn't it a year or two ago when the A's had like 14 players sharing 9 slots? Might have even been when Wok was there.
12
Thats just the thing though. You need to make a decision on Saunders ASAP IMO.
Its very unlikely Saunders actually raises his trade value as a rookie at the MLB level next year. More than likely hes going to struggle in the intial transition like 90% of all prospects. If you're sold on Ackley and like Langerhans' short term value, then Saunders in serious danger of getting Balentiened. Wlad himself had good trade value a couple years ago. You let Saunders struggle at the big league level and lose his starting job in the second year to Ackely and suddenly he has little to no trade value.
Why not just cash Saunders in this offseason for a prospect similar value at a different position or a young MLB piece that fits?
13
:daps: