Okay, any comp between pitchers and hitters is ... well, stupid. But, every time I peruse the Jackson stat summary, I get this "Adrian Beltre" ring in my ears. Beltre was a multi-year player who had the massive production spike at age 25.
I understand that "maybe" he put it altogether in 2009, and this is the beginning of a beautiful career. But, I look at his minor league line -- 4.0 BB/9 in his 500+ innings.
Doc notes that judging a kid like this is largely intuition. Well, my intuition isn't happy. I see a kid with a rock steady 1.1 HR/9 rate in the majors. Okay, his BB/9 and K/9 have fluctuated quite a bit, but even in his stellar 2009, his K-rate isn't anything to go gaga over. The big move forward is control. BUT ... the kid has never shown that kind of control before.
My sense is that this is a kid poised for regression, as I think his 2009 results likely exceeded his actual ability. The fact that TWO other clubs opted to give up on him doesn't add anything positive to the mix. Nor would the concept that Detroit is willing to give him up, either.
Yes, Jackson has 'stuff'. But Bonderman had stuff. Nate Robertson has stuff. Heck, Ian Snell has 'stuff'. Based on the general tone of most of what I've read, I see a lot of people putting 99% value on 2009 results, and largely ignoring everything else. Maybe he has figured it out, (like Unit did at age 29). Or maybe, he just had a career year of getting the close calls in Detroit. Anyone feel REALLY optimistic about him getting the close calls when he starts pitching for Seattle? Because the two things I see for 2009 are that a trait which he did NOT display in the minors suddenly blossomed ... and his BABIP allowed plunged from his career .306, to .278 in 2009.
My sense is that the walk rate was not real. That the BIP results weren't real, and that the 2009 results were likely a half run or so better than they should've been, (fangraphs shows his FIP at 4.28, just fyi).
Okay ... he's a nice young pitcher with some potential upside. I just don't get what all the excitement is about. If his final ERA for 2009 had been 4.28 instead of a 3.62 ... would there be any excitement about this kid at all?
.
=== Capt Jack Dept. ===
If you don't like Mikey Jay or Cool Papa or Mat Olkin :- ) that's cool. I feel ya.
Ask Jack Zduriencik, then. If you're going to be "ignoring anyone" who doesn't agree with you, that "Jackson isn't very good," I take it that a Jackson trade will leave us ignoring Zduriencik's own take on the pitcher?
How do you good buddies reconcile your beliefs that (1) Jackson isn't very good, (2) Jack Zduriencik is awesome, and (3) Zduriencik thinks Jackson is very good?
.
=== Caveat Emptor Dept. ===
Now, I'm not saying Edwin Jackson is the bee's knees. :shrug: he's a hotshot and 2009 was probably the season in which he figured it out. That's all.
I'll draft him around #12-16 among AL pitchers next year. There's a good chance that he'll provide a small profit. There's a small chance that he'll burn me.
There's a great argument for rolling the dice on Morrow's own breakthrough, instead. But that is no better than a 50-50 chance for 2010, and it won't be any better than 50-50 in 2011, and so on.
What do you want, [a 50-50 shot at TOR Brandon Morrow plus 1 arb year plus $5M in 2010] or [TOR Brandon Morrow]? It's a fair question.
For me, this is a no-brainer. I want the money in the bank. Chess dweebs take the pawn and grind out the endgame. They don't play for the speculative attack. A lot of things can happen in 30 moves, but the pawn is real.
.
=== Bora$ Dept. ===
What Dr. D did not know was that Scott Boras is representing Jackson.
Boras is the guy who invented the philosophy "You don't know what a high school player's value is until one hour before classes." Jackson is precisely the kind of pitcher that Boras will want up for bid.
Unless Capt Jack and Boras have a 2-year addon extension figured out -- then Jackson is in exactly the same contract situation that Felix is. We get Jackson for 1 year and then have to deal him.
Detroit probably isn't trading Jackson because they want to save his arb salary. They're trading him for the same reason we would trade Felix if he told us, right now, he would never sign in Seattle under any circumstances.
This factor is colossal. If the M's deal for Jackson, the deal will stand or fall with a prearrangement about an extension.
I don't want a blockbuster for Jackson without info about his 2012 and 2013. This is a dealbreaker in SSI La-La Land.
.
=== See You At the Ballpark ===
Look, amigos. I'm not Edwin Jackson's biggest fan. It's just that he happens to be a hot young SP who is available. Young TOR's making $6M don't walk around every street corner. Usually you can't trade for these guys.
Edwin Jackson throws harder than Felix. He can pop 98 any time he feels like it.
He screams that slider in there at 87 mph -- the same as Randy Johnson threw his, in his prime.
Put down the XL sheet and watch a ballgame. ;- ) This kid is a Cy Young talent. And in 2009 he pitched like it, right up until September.
You pay Jackson instead of Lackey, you get Jackson + Dunn* for about Lackey's salary. And then you have the rest of the winter too.
Or not,
Dr D
Comments
And Scott Boras being Jackson's agent is further reason for me to not want anything to do with Jackson. He's going to cost too much in prospects and then he's going to walk. And anyone who has Scott Boras as his agent has already accepted that they're going to be defined by money and not by how they relate with their teammates.
I like Jackson's odds at becoming a type-A free agent, for example, more than Morrow's. Numbers aside for a moment, I would bet on Jackson over Morrow based purely on physiology, as dumb as that may sound.
Morrow's build reminds me of Rich Harden while Jackson reminds me more of Felix.
Behind Felix, the M's have FOUR questionable SP (durability, not talent-wise). This move strikes me as plan B, if Lackey becomes too expensive. Washburn might represent plan F.
In a Lackey-less offseason, is it worth Morrow+ to upgrade from Washburn to Jackson for 2 seasons? Jack seems to think so.
Today, the word is that the talks have stalled and are unlikely to ever be productive...the reason? Z doesn't wan tto give up a load of prospects for Jackson just as he's about to hit FA.
Makes sense.
I took this series of articles as a response to the assertions that the M's are better keeping Morrow+ than Jackson (the "+" representing one or two more B/C prospects). Some bloggers expressed reluctance to make the swap straight up.
Having walked away from Jackson for two consecutive offseasons now, it would seem Jack believes he has a firm understanding of Jackson's value.
Am glad to hear that this is not likely to become a Ricky Williams/Eric Bedard kind of situation.
If you've seen 100 of these kids and are suspicious of Jackson, that is an assessment that counts for something with me.
No offense against others in the cyber-sphere, but it is the implication that "Jackson's statline, read correctly, shows that he isn't very good" that does not weigh with me. Because yours is an assessment that demonstrates respect for the complexity of the problem.
It IS interesting that a good number of fine pitching analysts don't like what they see in Jackson.
:daps:
That shows one pitcher body type that holds up better -- the bigger and huskier a pitcher is, the longer he lasts :- )
The Felix, Freddy, Schilling, Clemens type builds (as opposed to the willowy Morrow, Weaver) type builds, those apparently give you a nice bonus to your chances.
So probably you're onto something, factoring in Morrow's build...
... is that either Detroit won't let us talk contract with Jax, or Boras isn't receptive.
If that's the case, I don't want Jackson, either, except at a big discount in trade goods...
..............
If Detroit and/or Bora$ is playing for a win-lose scenario, then I'm fine at rolling the dice with Morrow.
Nice game he pitched last night ;- ) wasn't it...
rat cheer