Polish develops up here, not before you get here. Let Capps throw multiple innings....
In the same video queue as the Capps scenes is a great interview with Z. In response to a question about all the corner/DH types he's brought in he comments that it is a long time until spring training. I like this comment a lot. I'm going to read into that the idea that perhaps a guy like Raul isn't a lock to be here in ST.
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24617811&c_id=mlb
By the way, Z mentions the lost Mariner, Mike Carp, on his own and w/o prompt. Interesting. Almost as an afterthought, immediately following, he mentions Smoak. Huh, go figure.
By the way, the next interview is with a very poised Nick Franklin. Impressive. HIs opposite field shot of G. Cole is pretty dang impressive, too.
Get him in the game.
moe

edit - was Joel Hanrahan somebody the Ms were looking at at some point?

to take his lumps on the club. We'll see how they proceed with the rotation spots. I don't think I'd classify this front office either way just yet since I don't think they've had many chances to show a preference yet. Around April we'll have some more data on that.
It's starting to make me wonder with Beaven and Bonderman as the journeymen #4 and 5 right now. Are they planning on bringing one of Paxton, Hultzen or Maurer along? Maybe a bullpen convert or attempting with one or 2 of them? I mean, January is getting old, here. Still no rotation help? Capuano is the only guy I like much, but cost is a factor. Especially with so much rotation help being so close. He could be moved again midseason and potentially turn our surplus prospects now into a prospect at a position of need after holding down a rotation slot for now. I've been leaning towards bringing one along over paying for someone to use for 2 months anyway though.
I don't mind keeping 3 high 90's throwers together in the bullpen anyway. Capps, Pryor and Wilhelmsen can lead the bullpen for a few years the way I see it. We don't need to convert anybody to starting, but it could be a good move. Not sure I'd do it unless you're envisioning a permanent change and I don't think they need that. How many starters do we need for 2014? Is Capps one of your 5 for next year, or is he your #6?

But Pineda is the only guy I can recall this regime having in AA or AAA that it could be said they had that choice with until maybe last year. Certainly this year there are at least 3 possibilities and I'm not counting Walker.
The points made here about Pineda were well made and due to them I understand you saying that he was ready and it wasn't a case of refining in the show so much. I'm just asking what pitchers were close under Zduriencik that could have refined their game with the team? I think that otherwise this is the first year there's really been any. It looks like so far there's still 1 or 2 spots for them all to battle for so there's still some possibility they're going to show a willingness our even preference of having at least one figure things out with the MLB staff.
The conversations about Pineda, unique insight and the shtick were among the biggest things that kept my interest here as it was that offseason that I discovered the site. The lack of overbearing ego and good adult conversation kept me coming back.

In regards to what starters Z allowed to take their lumps in the Bigs:
2009: I would start with Vargas ... but would include Jakubauskas and Olson.
2010: Fister ... Pauley ... Luke French ...
2011: Pineda ... Beavan ... Furbush ... Wilhelmsen ... Lueke
2012: Noesi ... Luetge ... Erasmo
I think Z and the org have consistently been going with the guys the "felt" were the most ready guys every year.
It has not always worked out, (French, Olson, Noesi). But, there is both a willingness to allow a player to learn .... AND a willingness to send down for tweaking.
People forget that early on the read on Z was he was better with bats than arms, since Guti and Branyan were considered big wins, while Vargas, Olson, French were all initially considered busts.
Of course, after Figgins and Kotchman, the read on Jack and bats went south ... meanwhile, Vargas clicked and then Fister and Pineda turned Jack into a sage of pitching talent.
For me, what makes Jack so valuable is NOT that he gets every call correct, (he doesn't - nor does anyone else). But, he seems to have a good balance between giving guys "enough" time to work through the rough spots - but he is willing to give up and move on when he feels he has a better option.
He did not fall in love with Branyan ... or Jaso ... or Pineda, Fister, Vargas ... League.

And thanks for pointing those out. Now I feel lazy, should have gone back and looked for myself.
Would you rather see Capps or Wilhelmsen extended to starting or Paxton/Hultzen/Maurer competing for a spot? If a had to pick one myself it would be Paxton, but all 5 do seem like good possibilities.

I don't believe either he or Wilhelmsen will get out of the pen this year. That's not necessarily a bad thing - it SHOULD mean that we are letting Paxton/Hultzen/Erasmo roll out there every 5th day.
As with Pineda, however, there's no guarantee that those starters all stay with us after this year. Jack has lamented how little his minor league prizes were worth, and that in the current market it's better to get a performing major leaguer still under club control (even if that performance is average) over a hyped minor leaguer with no experience.
Which should make a guy like Seager our most valuable trade chip - and of course also one we do not want to trade. If Franklin has to move to 2nd or 3rd, though, or Miller does, or Romero, then we have other internal options and maybe we decide to cash in Seager's trade value.
Same thing if Paxton or Hultzen start off well, but we need to use one of them in a Stanton-type deal. That's when I would think we might "take the risk" and drop Capps or Wilhelmsen into the rotation to compensate.
It's not like baseball is going to a 30-man starting roster any time soon - gotta cash in.
What I would hate to do is move a "reliever" like Capps or Wilhelmsen in a deal like that, since you're essentially giving someone else another starter if they'd like to use the chip that way. I doubt that's the plan, though.
~G

but that's just contradiction and I came here for an argument. :)
I'm not trying to poopoo anything and maybe i didn't understand your point. I make it a point to not be dismissive, to ask questions and not use absolutes. If you really think I'm somehow being disruptive by discussing I'm sorry. I don't want to cause trouble, so I can quit posting if you prefer. I don't really get it though, it sounds like we're in agreement that there hadn't been another pitcher before this year that really fit what you were saying under Zduriencik.

Then we've only got Seager and Saunders to give at the moment. After this season both Montero and Ackley should be there too, wouldn't you think?
Funnily enough, the guy out of that batch who cannot be replaced via the minors right now is Saunders.
If Ackley goes then we can move Seager back to 2nd, or use Franklin/Triunfel/Miller/Romero (sheesh...) to fill.
If Seager goes, it's the same cadre of minor leaguers, plus Liddi should we so choose.
If Montero goes well there's some dude named Zunino who's a top-10 prospect in the game to replace him.
But Saunders? If you consider him a CF, then we have Morban and Landry about to get their feet wet in AA this year but still a little ways away from their potential big-league debuts. If he's a corner, then...um... move Romero, I guess? We'd play Wells a lot, I'm guessing, but unless Peguero covers up that huge chasm in his swing there's not really a corner bat who's anywhere near ready.
*shrugs* I love Seager. I think we'll be fine keeping all our kids, but as Spock would say, "'Fine' has variable definitions. Fine is unaccaptable."
Kids gotta be more than fine, or we're gonna have to bundle some up to get real production in here. Hopefully this is the year the talent starts to provide results, because I would love to see what Felix/Iwakuma/E-Ram/Paxton/Hultzen could do if backed by an offense with More and KMo giving a 120 OPS+ and Montero/Seager/Saunders/Ackley chipping in 110 each.
Stay away from the black hole whammies and that team could be fun. We are planning to have a platoon parter on standby for Ryan, right? Right, Jack?
~G

He was replying to Sandy, who's a brilliant contrarian in ways that are occasionally frustrating.
Glad you've come around to add to the discussion. ;-)
~G

That's all I'm asking. They haven't proven what they're going to do this year. I've heard Zduriencik say that they're after another starter too, but so far there are spots open. Everywhere I look there are assumptions that they'll sign or trade to lock down a spot or 2, but pitchers report in 19 days. They may send them all down, but I'm just asking what history there is that's suggestive of it.
I'm sorry I don't have much to add in scouting, still trying to learn what I can about that and I appreciate what others have to say here about mechanics. Speaking if which, isn't Montero a similar all fields power guy to Morse? Could he have things to learn from Morse? Is there more dissimilar that I'm not seeing?

Because I was confused.

Saunders is the last bat I'd trade next offseason without significant other additions to the outfield. Along with Morse and Morales, Guti might be gone next year too. There's that option so he could be retained, but its costly if we're still wondering about his health or he has a serious down year. I'm still surprised there's not been a Minorleague deal for an OF to stash an emergency CF at Tacoma for this year.
It seemed earlier in the offseason that they could match up with most teams in trade, but there is just so much more interest in proven regulars than I'm used to seeing. Next year had better look a lot better in that regard and I'm hopeful and fairly confident that it will. More so with young players gaining value than in teams valuing prospects more. I think prospect valuation may remain low for a couple years.

The way I would couch the issue is that the M's appear to hold starting pitchers to a fairly rigid standard for command and mechanical reproducibility before promotion. That is why Erasmo gets to pitch in the Bigs and Paxton doesn't, even though Paxton may get similar quality results. In short, all starting pitchers have to reach a certain level of craft -- roughly independent of 'stuff' -- before they will be on the big league roster. You don't get to refine your release point in the Bigs even if you could get big leaguers out while doing so.

To me, that is the more interesting question. If a pitcher has the stuff to get out batters with spotty command, what is the benefit/cost of leaving him in AAA to refine his release point on his fastball and his feel for a change-up?

Rickey got me in to baseball, he was the most exiting player I've ever watched. I even followed the A's for a few years. 89 and 90 were a couple years I confused many people by rooting for 2 division rivals. That blazing speed that will take the base even when you expect it is very rare but very entertaining. Had hopes for Gillies, but he wasn't even close to Nixon. The Mariners could really use that kind of guy in CF and leading off, but he's a SS and I am pretty sure he's an even less likely get than Stanton. And I think he's the only one in the game right now. Soooo...
Back to merely hoping for Paxton or Hultzen to be announced on the opening day club. But I looove that kind of speed.

Then it's a ridiculously idiotic approach, to let Paxton hang out in the minors because he walks 4 guys per 9. Clayton walked 5 per his first full year in the bigs and his OPS+ was a ridonkulous 143. Why weren't walks a problem? Cuz he led the league in lowest H/9. It's not like that was a fluke - he's done it 2 of the 3 years since.
Mortals CANNOT hit Kershaw - and now that his walks are bottoming out he's gotten well and truly terrifying, but he was scary even when he did walk people.
If you're gonna walk people, you can't get hit. One of the reasons Morrow could never quite get over the hump to being a productive pitcher instead of just a talented one is that his hits were too high. He left balls where guys could put wood on them, and they did, and it hurt his ERA. This year his hits were more Kershaw-esque and his ERA went through the floor because of it. His K:BB ratio was actually a bit worse this last year than in prior years, but if nobody's connecting for hits it's hard to score on ya.
Luke Hochevar isn't a bad pitcher because of his Ks, or his walks, because both are very reasonable. He's a bad pitcher because he gets hit too much. Ditto Porcello, who's an ATROCIOUS meatballer.
So how's Paxton?
Completely unhittable in the low minors, and only hittable in AA due to his knee injury - when he was healthy, nobody from either side of the plate could do much against him.
Maybe the Ms don't trust Paxton because he's still only throwing about 100 innings a season, and jumping that to 200 scares them. But the walks shouldn't be holding him back, IMO. With his stuff he can be "effectively wild" and pull his weight in the rotation.
If he really does harness his stuff and kill the walks as well, then look out - but waiting for him to do it is being unnecessarily cautious IMO.
Looking forward to seeing him in Tacoma when the Rainiers come to my town, though. I don't expect my advice to be taken. ;-)
~G

If, as rumored, Paxton adjusted his delivery slightly after the knee injury to avoid reinjury, and came back to put up the numbers he did (e.g., in the Southern League playoffs - 13.1 IP, 7 H, 0 XBH, 1 R, 0 ER, 19 K, 3 BB), then I also think, Gordon, that mortals won't hit him, either.
cf. - Spec's pitching leaderboard with comments - http://marinerstalk.com/article/2012-pitching-leaderboards-composite-index

And there actually are a few that could take 80+ bags in a season in a few years in MLB. All of them I found were middle infielders though.