If you knew Saunders was going to be a star then you absolutely invest in him. The problem is its never that clear cut. You could end up investing 1000 Abs only to find out that Saunders is actually Ryan Langerhans.
My major beef with Saunders in the past wasn't his promise as a prospect, but more the presence of Dustin Ackley. With the likelihood of Saunders struggling with the bat in '10 being very high, you would have created another Wlad situation where you've killed your prospects trade value and now the next guy is ready to take over (Ackley).
With Ackley being moved to 2B possibly now, I like the idea of investing in Saunders' more noe. He will produce even when he isn't hitting thanks to his superb glove. Worse case scenario you have Ryan Langerhans 2.0, best case scenario you have Curtis Granderson 2.0.
With the Cliff Lee trade though, Z obviously wants to win NOW, and an upgrade over Saunders in the short-term could be pretty important. Ideally I would not want to see Z sell low on Saunders and instead keep him in AAA for the rest of the year and trade for LF with the potential to produce like an impact player in '10. Seth Smith? :-)
Just got a copy of HQ under the tree today. Bet you pokeys wish you had wives who gave you Baseball Forecaster for Christmas. :- )
(You can order yours here. No, we don't have embedded ad links at SSI - just fair play for excerpting a bit of Ron's shtick.)
.
=== HQ Riff ===
0-4-.221 in 122 AB at SEA. Power skills were nowhere to be found in majors (34 PX), but MLE's suggest there's some pop in his bat. Speed skills are good, OBP is not. Has potential, will need some time to reach it.
.
=== SSI Mixing Board ===
In Shandler-speak, he is ranging across a variety of skills that refer to the 5x5 do-everything roto player ... AVG, SB, HR, etc., and showing interest in all of them.
Shandler sees Michael Saunders' power do a bug-on-a-windshield act in the major leagues, as well as a weak EYE, and comes up with ... overmatched, not ready.
.
=== SSI Mosh ===
I don't remember anybody in Seattle taking this Zen-like position: Saunders will be good, but he won't be good in 2010.
Now that you mention it, this seems painfully obvious, considering (1) Saunders' background and (2) his funky swing. The same verdict applies to Jeff Clement -- he'll be real good, but down the road.
................
This simple assessment, also reconciles both Cool Papa's take and Capt Jack's take.
Cool Papa is thinking Beltran-like numbers for Saunders at some point ... Jack seems uninterested. But perhaps that merely represents the fact that Zduriencik is playing a lot more for 2010 than we even give him credit for? And that the tools scouts saw something we didn't: that it's going to be ugly for Michael Saunders in 2010?
.................
If the breadth and depth of the talent pyramid were the priority, you'd just put Saunders in at LF -- hey, the guy plays great defense. Even if he doesn't hit at all, he's still Endy Chavez.
If that be the case, and Saunders be a really exciting young prospect who is going to need 1,000 - 1,500 AB's to jell as a minor star ... then pushing such a player aside for an ML free agent in LF? That puts the 2010 season wayyyyyyy up front as the priority. I'm not saying that's wrong, of course.
.
=== NPB Paradigm ===
In these posts, Dr. Naka offered a truly distinctive angle on Zduriencik's decisionmaking process. In this comment, I opined that the extremely-results-oriented Toyota process is valuable ....
The Toyota TQM thinking does allow for patience -- where the investment will reap rewards -- and it does allow for remedies to poor performance. But only to a certain point. At Toyota, there is a relentless sense of urgency about current productivity.
............
If Saunders is going to need two full years of playing time before he becomes a MOTO hitter, this strains the TQM thinking to its breaking point. Zduriencik is not looking to win in 2013.
I would be interested to hear, from Dr. Naka and others -- if you assessed a 50% chance that Michael Saunders would become Carlos Beltran, starting in July 2012 -- what would you do with this player?
Ideally, if you're in win-NOW!! mode, the Royals would give you full value for Saunders as the #4 prospect in the PCL. But supposing, because of Saunders' poor debut, nobody will give good value?
.
=== Second Opinion Dept. ===
I like the X-rays and opinions provided by Shandler. This is my updated prognosis on Saunders: that he'll need 1,000 AB's, and then he'll quite possibly become a club-controls star.
If that be the case, do you invest the time? Cliff Lee and Felix Hernandez have 1 and 2 years left, respectively.
Happy Xmas,
Dr D
Comments
And really, how much time does Ichiro have left? F Gut will start getting expensive soon, too.
Any young blue-chipper, other than the Chipper Joneses and Joe Mauers, the best you get is a 50-50 chance at a Carlos Beltran type.
Saunders may come close to offering that, and the question is, now what do you do...
If you're not willing to invest 1-2 years in Saunders, you may not be ready to invest that in ANY young player, right?
I am willing to invest 1-2 years in Saunders, or Carp, or Tui, or Johnson/Moore, just not several of them in the same year. We seem set (stuck) at C this year, so Johnson and/or Moore will get our investment. Unless Lopez is traded, Tui likely plays in Tacoma. One of Saunders or Carp may make the club out of ST, but both seem unlikely, just one maybe.
Catcher is kind of a separate issue... supposing that Johjima, e.g. was still at catcher and that Saunders was going to be your only young player.
That changes our opinion, and now we'd prefer to give him his 1-2 years in 2010-11? Or LF is a spot for a bat as we make a run with Felix & Lee?
Perhaps I'd have been better off asking, are you going to invest in a young player at a bat position...
I would set his chances of starring at 20-25%, but his chances of being a quality player at 40-45%.
I like Saunders, and maybe the Ms want to upgrade for '10, then start his MLB development in '11. Another year in AAA wouldn't hurt.
Let him slice and dice AAA for four months, and then either he's a real hot commodity in July, or....
............
I don't keep up with GM stuff much, perhaps because I'm not hoping to be a GM. :- ) Would Saunders' FA or arb clock be ticking if he did not play in the majors at all before September?
Purchased on July 25th, 2009, giving him about 2 months of service time.
FWIW.
I understand the position that one might not want to audition 3 potentials into a lineup at the same time. That is a LOT of unknown. But, the position is one based on underlying pessimism. "We can afford to try out one guy at a time, because if he fails, the other 8 pick up the slack, and we win anyway."
The problem with this view is it based on the perceived "guarantee" coming from non-prospects. The club, in 2009 was "guaranteed" of standard performance out of Beltre as much as any player. They didn't get it. There's risk of injury with every player. There is risk of collapse with every player. You don't have to a 32-year-old slugger to suddenly go south. It happens. (Go follow the Fernando Tatis saga for an example).
The problem with the 1-at-a-time prospect approach is that there is also a likely assumption that the club will "select" the most-likely-to-succeed prospect to get the audition. That is, unfortunately, not how it works. The club HAS to have someone playing every position. If they can get a cheap, quality bat at 1B, then maybe the most-likely guy gets to repeat AAA, while the less-likely 3B or LF gets his shot.
My view is that EVERY prospect carries basically the same risk -- "either we're right - or we're wrong". You don't promote "just because" a player turns 25. You promote because you think he's ready -- or because you don't think continuing to face AAA competition is going to be very helpful.
If a club thinks it has a 1B, 3B and LF *all* ready to audition for the bigs, then they HURT THEMSELVES by only giving one a tryout. They are hurt immediately financially, having to pay more for that "MLB proven" bat. They are hurt by potentially surrendering a year of MLB development for said prospect. If they HAVE learned what they can in AAA, then sending them back for another year doesn't help them -- and WHATEVER their learning curve is going to be against MLB competition, you've just pushed that back a year.
The optimistic view is not "what if they fail". The optimist says, "what if they succeed?" What if one of them turns out to be WAY better than we thought, and the other two are immediately MLB serviceable? In THAT scenario, you've got a LOT more available cash to plug in other holes. You also have side-effects. They are home-grown, which is a boost to the morale of the scouts who suggested them -- the coaches who coached them -- the players they played with in the minors who go, "gee, if he made it, maybe so can I".
Of course, every situation is unique. It depends on the talent of the prospects - the talent of the potential vets to block them. The available payroll. There isn't one right answer. But answer me this. After the 2003 season, (hindsight being 20/20), would the club been better served by dumping vets and acquiring some prospects - or doing what they did -- going out and getting guys like Spezio, and Aurillio? Hindsight says betting on the vets was a bad, bad, bad bet. But, when you bet on prospects and lose, the "assumption" is that betting on vets would've been better. It's untrue -- and the Seattle 2004 season is the proof of that reality.
In fact, bringing up multiple prospects seems to have a multiplying effect -- where having multiple rookies allows them to share a similar experience and reduce the edge off being THE big name prospect. What I really wonder, however, is how much the perception would've changed if the 2009 Ms had won only 79 games, instead of the 85 they did. I think - EXACTLY LIKE 2007 - that many are viewing the 2009 club as closer to the post-season then they really were. And I can hear the knee-jerk defenses raising for all the reasons that the two cannot be comped. But, it's not the TEAMS I'm comping. It's the reaction to the results I'm comping. Win 88, pythag 79 -- "but, we're really better than that." win 85, pythag 75, "but, we're really better than that." It is the EXACT same reaction - and the only difference in the reaction is the list of potential rationalizations to wield to ignore the similarity in situations.
Similarly, if a chess move is the best one, if it raises your winning chances from 48% to 52%, then you play it every time in the same situation. (That's one of the compasses in the chaos: would I play this move every game?)
If the ROI on Saunders and on Tui make each of them the best choice at their position, then you go with both of them. True dat.
............
Stars & Scrubs gives fluidity. If the A's put three young guys in there, and two flop, they swap them out real quick. It's when you buy a Curtis Granderson that you ossify a position for better or for worse.
I think with prospects you can't really afford to be either optimistic or pessimistic. You make mistakes that way.
Theres nothing wrong with acquiring a mini-star bargain guy like Granderson. I would trade Saunders for Granderson straight up in a heart beat. Granderson is Saunders' best case scenario and hes already locked up to the well below-market value contract that you dream of.
A much bigger problem is blocking the position long-term with an overpaid FA like Jason Bay.
...that Saunder is now and has always been...a jack of all trades and a master of none.
Good speed but it never turns into big SB numbers or elevated BABIP for his leagues
Decent power but not special power...a line drive hitter who lacks projectable power (e.g. he's not going to fill out and suddenly go from minor league 110 PXs to major league 150 PXs...his power is going to be exactly what it was in the minors because his swing is goofy and unlikely to get miraculously converted into a power swing and because his body type is all wrong for massive power output)
Fair batting eye, but strikes out a TON and this is likely to continue because his pitch recognition skills are weak and his swing is too long to allow him to wait on pitches much.
Bad contact skill. Period.
He projects to, maybe, one day, hit .250/.330/.420 in the majors with good D. Maybe.
In two or three years when his learning period is over. Not now for sure and not in 2011 either most likely.
For me...even if you know that giving him 400 ABs a year in 2010 and 2011 will turn him into a bargain poor-man's Mike Cameron, it's NOT WORTH IT to invest that time. He's a non-prospect if I'm the Mariner GM...I send im packing. It is going to take him too long to learn this game at the big league level and his upside isn't high enough to justify the growing pains.
And our hypothetical isn't questioning Granderson specifically. Bay is a better example of the point under discussion, agreed.
Passing on Bay because you're worried about blocking Saunders of all people is, IMHO, braindead. I'm sorry...bit if Saunders maxes out all of his unspectacular skills, he's not going to be 1/4th of the player that Bay already is. Safeco or no Safeco. Saunders is a NOTHING compared to Bay. You do not block your WS appearance in 010 because you're hoping Saunders will give you 50% of Bay's production for 1% of Bay's cost. At some point...you have to spend for the star producing like a star.
The thing is with Saunders' glove he could be a dissapointment offensively and still be productive.
As long as he isn't a disaster offensively he won't hurt you, and if he pans out like Granderson you have a mini-star (better than Bay).
If he gives you a 750 OPS with great D in left, thats actually a better player than Lopez.
I wouldn't mind trading him at all for a different long-term LF, but I also don't think hes a gauranteed bust.