Couldn't not post after the kind words.
I'll recap my original take on Langerhans -- streaky squared.  Which is odd, because my 'normal' template for streak hitters tend more toward the high K guys (Glaus) -- oh, wait, Glaus fans at a 25% rate, Langerhans at 30%.  (those are career averages). 
To clarify - guys strike out for lots of different reasons.  So, some high-K guys aren't overly streaky.  But most "overly streaky" hitters I've watched tend to fan a LOT.  This is because, (whatever the cause), when they are slumping, they are whiffing. 
My guess is that it's pitch recognition - when hot, they 'see' the ball earlier, and the beauty-swing shows up.  When cold, they 'see' the ball late, start the pretty-swing, then are forced to alter it - or (more often?) - don't, and simply miss the ball.  So, when judging the swing, they look fantastic.  But, when judging the results, not so much.
In 2010, Langerhans set a personal worst for K%, (47.7%).  In his two full Brave seasons, he had an O-Swing% of 14.7% (18.6% for his career).  In '09 and '10 with the Ms -- 27.5% and 21.8%.  Basically, Langerhans' pitch recognition is crappy as hell, unless he's playing 3-4 games a week, (300 PAs/yr).  He simply loses the zone, (and Ms coaches and/or utilization haven't done him ANY favors since moving to the great northwest).
Langherhans makes a great #4 OF, *NOT* because he's a good pinch-hitter, (he ain't).  It's because, if pressed into full-time regular duty, he can post a .750 OPS, or even something over .800 during a hot streak.  About the worst you could do is play him twice a week, because you'll get his worst level of aptitude with essentially zero chance at a positive streak - and he'll hit in the .600s and whif ... a lot.
==========
Saunders, on the other hand, had a K% in 2010 of 29.1%, (30.2% for all his MLB ABs).  But, his O-Swing% went 22.9% in '09 up to 28.2% in 2010.  He actually puts bat on ball better than Langerhans whether the ball is in the zone or not.  But, my take on Saunders is that he's simply another in a long line of "unteachable" Bavasi prospects.  IMO, by 2008, he was a "finished" hitter - as good as he'll ever be.  But, he had a "career year" in 2009 (at Tacoma), pushed mostly by a high average - so the perception was that he'd taken his game to another level.
But, like many high-K guys, he's streaky.  So, because he was streaky at AAA in 2009, he was dubbed 'ready' or 'near ready', and got the call.  In truth, I think after getting booked in the majors and watching his production drop like a rock in the second half - I think for the first time EVER, Saunders is actually on board with the idea that he has to change significantly to compete at the highest level.  So, he's listening to the coaches - trying to adjust - and like anyone doing anything for the first time, he's a disaster at the moment.
While I do believe that any athlete who gets to the point he has must have some kind of chance at starting from scratch - dumping old muscle memory - and coming back better than he was before -- my instinct is that he won't ... primarily because he lacks the mental foundation to deal with the reality of his situation.
I think the uber-stars (Griffey, AROD), are driven from birth, not only with the athletic gifts, but with a desire to constantly get better -- so they (on their own) - learn about tinkering, adjusting, adapting, even when it is not NEEDED.  But, I think many of the prospect washouts, who survived all their lives on simple athleticism, don't have the tools needed to deal with the mental aspects of "retooling" a swing, or dealing with a 300 point drop in OPS when tinkering with this or that part of a swing.
I think Saunders lands in AAA because the club has reasoned seeing more MLB pitching won't help.  Saunders must work out the kinks and build a new approach at a lower level - and *IF* he survives that process, then he comes back up.  Maybe after hitting .900 for a month, maybe after simply showing the scouts and coaches he's grown comfortable with the changes, regardless of immediate production.
My instinct is that he'll fail - because the track record of "change" in Bavasi era prospects was practically nil.  If I were looking for a production sign that he's become an MLB-viable hitter it would probably be a switch from the 2:1 double to HR ratio to a 1:2 ratio.  Based on the little I've seen, I think if he ever does put it ALL together, you'll see that kind of slosh in his power numbers.

Doc writes:
"Look - if Saunders changed org's, would anybody be shocked if somebody gave him a tweak and he became the next Shin-Soo Choo?  Course not. So why be shocked if Chris "Six-Ring" Chambliss found the tweak?...."
Is there a perception that Shin-Soo Choo was broken until Cleveland fixed him and thus made him a star?  Because all I ever saw looking at the minor league stats is a fine hitter.

Yes,
Choo's profile as an 18 year old rookie is pretty darn identical to what he became as an MLB player.  He cut down his K-rate a smidge, but all in all, he was a .300/.400/.480 hitter from day one to present.  He's what the entire Bavasi collage of talent was aimed at -- see it and hit it guys who would just continue to the majors pretty much as older versions of what they started as.
What's funny is - Choo is the exemplar that supports the notion that talent will just magically adjust to the next level simply by moving there, (until they don't, at which point, you dump them).
Mind you, I have no idea how hard Choo had to work to adjust at each level or tweak his swing etc.  But, the production results are about as flat as any hitter I can remember.  He never flopped his 2B/HR ratio - (though 2010 is did move closer 3:2 instead of 2:1). 
Count Choo among the Yuni/Lopez "success" stories for Bavasi.  He marched up the ladder without evidence of change or growth.  His ceiling was just higher from day one.

And if he had been brought along about a year ahead of Mangini's pace (fringe of majors at 24 as opposed to 25), that would maybe have been about right.  In the majors at 22 was all wrong.  But he was a victim of his own success (well-timed hot streaks, as you note, Sandy) and the complete lack of alternatives from his era (that weren't traded away).
I still have hope for him, but unfortunately the path he ended up taking (rushed to majors and then trying to revamp once already there) was, as Sandy says, a bad fit for the "gifted jock" template (as with Tui, also born in 1986).
Where are you on Tenbrink (also born in 86), Sandy?  I'd love him as a 4th OF, but he can't back up in CF.

Langerhans is basically a replacement level player, or perhaps just a touch better (Perhaps!), only because he walks 100 pts.  He can't hit, he doesn't hit for power, he's a league average fielder....but he walks 100 pts. 
He can play all three OF positions and he walks.  So he has hung around for nearly 600 games ad 1400 PA's. 
He is a 31 year old replacement level player. I'm willing to bet that you could look at the AAA club of EVERY MLB team and find an equivalent young player available.
Heck, we traded Carrera last year for a few games from a guy we had already refused to sign.  Carrera has an upside.
The Mariners will keep him (arrrrgh) but he is exactly the kind of player that a building team shouldn't.  We're going to keep a guy who has hit .218 and .196 for us the last two seasons....and slugged a whopping .386 and .318.
Moe
 

If only we had some AAA player who consistently kept his OBP over .360 or had even approached .400 at some point in his minor league career.  In the upper minors would be preferable because it would show that he could handle advanced pitching.  Then we'd get 6 club-controlled years of this on-base machine.  Maybe he could be even bigger than Langerhans, so we'd know he'd grow into power as he matures.  Ks aren't an issue since Langerhans himself is a streaky K-machine, right?
Meet Tui.  We had the Langerhans-replacement on hand last year - and he was soooooo abysmal that we had to give Langerhans at-bats, bring him back to camp this year, and he'll make the 2011 squad too.
Zeke Carrera or Tuiasosopo would be great if they could "just" do what Langerhans does. 
Problem is, they can't, or at least I wouldn't trust them to in 2011.  This is the conundrum: can you trust your minor leaguers to be professional hitters or are they gonna death-spiral into the ground with some adversity?
So far Saunders, Tui and crew have death-spiraled.  I hope they pick themselves up off the ground.  They are tools players which means they have the physical talents to be successful - at least as successful as Langerhans.  I mean, how hard can that be?
The Mariners believe it's decently hard, or Langerhans would be gone.  We might have equivalent young players available, but that doesn't mean they won't crash and burn.
I remember the screams about Bloomie, and Johjima, and even good players like Ibanez.  "Don't need em, don't pay em...throw the bums out!  Any idiot can do what they do!"
All the Wilsons were worse than Bloomie last year (at least at the plate), our catching production has been a disaster since Joh gave us back 8 mil a year and went home, and Ibanez is the best offensive player we've had in recent times.
RLP is given too much credence at times.  Yes, you SHOULD be able to find that guy in your system for basically free.  The As do it all the time.
But we have proven over time that our prospect philosophies and training skills have been found wanting in that area.  We have different ones now, so maybe the Seagers and Tenbrinks can come up and play for us successfully without the need for 31 year old outfielders with one skill.
Until then, one skill properly utilized is better than 3 skills squandered abominably. IMO.
~G

G,
Point well made....
 
However the problem withkeeping a Langerhans is that you never to see your young players.  You keep a Langerhans and you trade a Carrera, who has an upside, probably.  You keep a Langerhans and you may lose a Mike Wilson, who may have an TTO-type upside.
I would much rather we look at a M. Wilson for 3 mos. than a Langerhans. Maybe, just maybe, you find a guy who helps you down the line.  If not......You look at a Halman or you trade a Mangini (or such) for a AAA CF/OF.  Or you just decide that Saunders is a 4th OF for ever. 
Looks like Guti may start the season on the DL.  Put Saunders in CF (where he should be), let Wilson be a 4th OF and RH bench bat.
Langerhans is a known quantity...you are very right.  But he does nothing very well...minus take pitches.
The easy thing to do is keep him.  The right thing in regards to evaluating future talent is to send him down, if he'll take it.  If not, then see if Gross will take the AAA assignment.  There you have your emergency/bailout CF/OF.  And in that scenario you get to see a Wilson.  I don't know if he will survive.  I do think he is the equal, at least, of a Langerhans.
 
moe

I'm at least a little concerned about Smoak's ST, yet have found no real analysis of his performance.  I know that 35 AB is not a real sample, but there doesn't seem to be a postive trend in either contact or power.  Furthermore, Stone mentioned (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/larrystone/2014547812_stone20.html) that "continue to say privately there are holes in his swing to be exploited."
Could someone who understands these things far better than I offer any insight/hope for his 2011 campaign?

He's done all right.  Mark Teixeira, the guy Smoak is called the second coming of, has holes in his swing.
Pull up some hot and cold zones on big-time hitters and you'll see some interesting blue areas.  Yes, Beltre had a cold zone like Siberia on the slider off the plate, but most players have a hole somewhere.
Is Smoak gonna get tested and have pitchers find out where those are? Sure.  I saw Justin for the wrong handful of games in ST to criticize him, though.  He crushed balls from both the LH and the RH side of the plate, slapped singles with authority, and walked whenever he wasn't putting wood on the ball.  All his power numbers and a good percentage of his walks came in the 3 games I was there, basically, so all I experienced was Good Justin.
Where the specific holes in his swing are currently I can't say.  It used to be inside, IIRC, but then he fixed his hand-load so he could catch up to fastballs better and that led to his HR romp in the last few games of last season.
Justin's a bit of a pitch stalker, so he's gonna get some called and swinging strike 3s.  He's also gonna crush some balls in the Safe.  Why isn't he doing that in the desert?  I dunno.  I do remember Bret Boone's key to a good year was to have a sucky Spring Training.  ST is not the normal routine, and it tends to be for working on aspects of your game instead of locking in at the plate. 
I don't really have any worries about him.  Maybe I should be worried, but Justin Smoak being a decent 1B is one of the few things I feel confident about with this Mariners team.
Anybody ask the scouts if they were the ones so high on Montero that they couldn't believe we wouldn't give up Cliff Lee for him and genuflect in the process?  Montero's got a .222 average and a .25 eye with no power in his tiny ST sample size.
The scouts should go whine to the Yankees about his swing holes too while they're at it.  Smoak hasn't had the greatest spring training, but there are worse things. 
We'll see what happens when the games count - and I'm still looking forward to his at-bats with great anticipation. :)
~G

Thanks G for the quick reply, the eye witness reporting is especially good to hear.
Cheers,
M