1
But seriously, this better get remedied.
.
The word "Thesaurus" comes from an old Latin word meaning "storehouse" or "treasure." In 1852, Dr. Peter Roget published a treasury of "English words and phrases," apparently to be used as a toolbox for writers.
Treasury?! The single most, um, embarrassing thing a writer could admit -- much more embarrassing than admitting plagiarism, which implies that you're beating the system -- is that he needed a thesaurus to find convincing words.
... Donny Osmond, when he was a kid, cheerfully admitted that he used a thesaurus to come up with song lyrics, and he was forever done as a Serious Artist. Totally insincere, don'tcha know.
The Artist Formerly Known as Dr. D has no dignity left to protect, so he'll tap the left sleeve and call Roget out of the bloggy bullpen to give him the last three innings off. Peter Roget, a LOOGY, takes his eight warmup tosses and then, unlike M's starters, goes to his own bloggy strengths ...
LHP Roget stretches, comes sidearm from first base, :ahem:
..........
EMBARRASSING implies an external distress that causes a person to become suddenly self-conscious:
........
MORTIFYING carries the connotation of a severe and vexing embarrassment, often with the idea of subduing one's vitality or will:
..........
A HUMILIATING occurrence is extremely destructive to one's self-respect or dignity. It comes from an Greek word that means to lie very low, such as a "humble" river that drops below sea level:
............
DEMEANING is any situation which greatly lowers one's status or reputation:
..........
UNSETTLING can express embarrassment, but more frequently conveys the idea of upsetting, disturbing, or discomposing:
............
Good effort, lefty. Hit the showers. We'll get you a chance in a tight ballgame next time...
No matter what happens next, we've got to acknowledge that the Astros series was a low point in Seattle baseball history.
The Times, Prospect Insider, and other places are calmly reminding us that you've got to go until at least mid-May before reacting too strongly. They're right, of course.
Think of the Angels. They've got Trout, Hamilton, and Pujols, and they're 2-6. Their ace has a broken arm, and he was clocking 85 MPH before he broke it.
Their #2 pitcher is fading fast -- walks going up, ability to throw cutters going down. (Both of these fading pitchers JUST SIGNED their long-term deals.) Their #3 pitcher, Blanton, just struck out 0 batters in his second start, after giving up 3 gopher balls in his first game.
.............
If it's me, Danny Hultzen makes Blake Beavan's next start, but the TNT just ruled that out of bounds -- that's the kind of thing only Bill Bavasi and Mike Hargrove would do, sez Ryan. Hm. Is that accurate? Would calling up Danny Hultzen be worthy of ridicule?
..............
Objectively speaking, the M's are fine. See you at the ballpark for the Supreme Court.
Come on you Gooners,
Dr D
Comments
2
I'm in with Hultzen, if the callup is after the arb deadline. I'm not giving that up for 1 or 2 starts.
What I think I know:
1. Shoppach is mashing.....ala Jaso, last year. Tough to keep him out of the lineup until he frosts over some.
2. Smoak.....sigh. Small sample, I suppose. And I suppose he hit another ball hard last night. But it is nearly as easy to suppose he just isn't going to have a long-term bat. That said, he'll probably go 3-4 with a dinger tonight. That will cement his place in the lineup for 2 more weeks. He will proably follow it up with a 1-13, or some such thing.
3. I'm even more convinced that somebody has messed Ackley up. Every AB, every swing, he just looks like he's trying to hit it to the left of 2B. I hate that. Start denting the RF wall, Dustin. That's my new mantra. C'mon kid.
4. Fatigue? Rest? Balderdash! Morse sits? Uh.....Why? As long as he's doing his M. Mantle imitation, I'm roling him out each and every day. Do cobra's get tired?
5. Everytime a M's thrower misses up it gets hammered. Can we catch a break. That said, Beavan's performance concerned me plenty. He doesn't have Maurer's stuff, he has a very fine line. He isn't very close to it right now. He goes to LR as soon as Hultzen gets that extra year.
6. Our Buster Posey is waiting in Tacoma for his phone call. What to do with Montero is the question in play. DH, demote or deep six? The solution may be to DH-platoon him with Ibanez. Roster issues may complicate that.
7. Eric Thames does not want to be forgotten. Pegs, too.
8. Andino isn't very darn good.
The King is up. Long live the King! Go team. Beat those Texicans.
moe
3
I tried to lightly defend the Astros as NOT a reasonable candidate for "worst-team-of-all-time" and pretty much was told I didn't know what I was talking about because I haven't SEEN them play.
I didn't see them squash the Ms twice, either. My opinion on the Astros is unchanged.
2011: 89 OPS+ -- 83 ERA+ -- 56 wins
2012: 83 OPS+ -- 88 ERA+ -- 55 wins
They were the worst team in baseball the last two years. They won 1/3 of their games the last two years.
There is no reason to believe they are demonstrably WORSE than the last two years.
There are reasons to believe they might make some "slight" improvement this year.
The Astros are marked down severely because they have zero name cache to boost perception. Carlos Lee (and his 103 OPS+) is gone from the offense, making Carlos Pena the closest thing to a recognizable name on the team. Erik Bedard is the closest thing to a "sexy" arm.
But, Houston has a bunch of guys that are near league average ability - most very young, (meaning potential for improvement).
A great day can happen AGAINST anybody. The Rangers 21-run debacle last season came against the Mariners - not the Tigers. It happens.
Coming into 2013, there was reason to be concerned about the rotation, (even before Maurer made the cut). After Felix, there is a LOT of who-knows. Even Iwakuma is no sure thing. Plenty of import arms have managed a great start followed by a collapse to mediocrity (or worse).
Saunders is the closest thing to a sure bet as Doc so accurately pegged - as far as pitchers go, there are few with so little upside OR downside than Saunders. But, everyone understood there was a lot of risk in the rotation. But, there's a lot of near-ready help on the farm. That's precisely why the risk was warranted, (versus sticking with another safe pick like Garland).
I'm optimistic about Ackley and Maurer and pessimistic about Beavan and Smoak. Others have exactly opposite opinions. Nobody knows the outcome until its ... well ... outcome.
Baseball is not the NBA. Yankees - Houston is not even REMOTELY comparable to Heat - Bobcats. Houston is also likely going to kick Yankee butt and smack Detroit around several times this season.
But, lost in all of the length and noise of a baseball season are little tidbits like:
In 2012 Seattle head-to-head outscored BOTH Texas (87-72) and Anaheim (85-84)
Oh, yes there are occasional lop-sided team-v-team results. Most make little "sense", because they are a result of catching the right team on the wrong day or vice versa.
Some 2012 Seattle details:
v Baltimore 1-8 (Seattle almost singlehandedly earned the Orioles a playoff spot)
v Detroit 5-1 (the Tigers had to come from behind to beat ...
v WhiteSox 1-8 (Seattle nearly flipped baseball on its head, crushing Tigers while wimping out against the pale hose).
In baseball, the best team doesn't always win. In baseball the best team is lucky to win 60% of the time.
Give Montero or Shoppach a few games to get comfy with Maurer ... maybe he settles down.
If Smoak or Ackley or Montero has ONE good game - that could ignite a six week hitting streak.
That's baseball.
Before the 2013 season, the Oakland As were dismissed as a contender just like 2012. Why? No "sexy" names. Guess what? Pujols watched the playoffs on TV last year - and so did Hamilton.
Me? I still see a Mariner team with .500 (ish) talent ... but with enough flexibility where the right addition or the right player blossoming could push it to becoming a .550 team. It is waaaaaay early - and this team SHOULD have problems early. But, this team SHOULD also improve as the year unfolds ... be that because Smoak and Ackley and Montero and Maurer finally click ... or because guys like Romero and Zunino and Hultzen come up to replace them.
It's gonna be a long, bumpy ride.
I for one, am looking forward to it.
4
5
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1601289-trade-rumors-mariners-on-verg...
Aaron Harang?
If this is true then all Mariner FO/management perspective is in shambles. Just 10 days ago (or so) we let Garland go because we were convinced we had better options. In two starts by Maurer and two starts by Beavan we've punted on that strategy completely.
With ERam and (seemingly) Hultzen soon to be ready, we're actually going to trade a MiLB pitcher for Harang? Then what in the heck was letting Garland go all about? Did we expect Maurer to be Tom Seaver out of the gate? Beavan is a well understood commodity. What could the FO/management have NOT understood about him?
Harang is a 1.4 WHIP who might top out at 100 ERA+. Holy crud, we just gave that away for free in Garland.
Can this possibly be about grizzled veteranness? If so, I say EGAD!
I've tried hard to believe there is a plan. I'll give that up if this happens.
I would rather see 6 Noesi starts than this.
I-AM-AT-A-LOSS-FOR-WORDS!
Just say NO Z!
moe
PS: http://www.examiner.com/article/michael-saunders-injury-update-saunders-...
If we see 15 days of Endy Chavez, there will be no words to explain my growing sense of doom, in regards to the FO.
In light of the Harang thing, we will probably send Thames back to Toronto just so we can get Casper Wells back.
Or maybe we will just resign Figgy? That would be totally symmetrical, wouldn't it.
Sigh.....sigh.....sigh
6
Personally I really don't care if Harang is more expensive than Garland -- the M's owners have plenty of money and it's only for 1 year. To me - the operative question is: who is better? We need 1 year stop gap(s) until our young pitching talent is ready. If Garland is better than Harang, and cheaper, then the M's talent evaluators made a mistake.
7
And far more tested for going long innings into games.
And not injured.
Garland was an interesting study case, but c'mon...the dude hadn't pitched a full healthy year since 2010...Harang is steady...a solid acquisition, albeit not an awe inspiring one.
I'm fine with this...THIS is a club that needs to be fought for. Moe's reaction seems way way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY over the top to me.
8
For the M's right here/right now - who fills more of their needs: Chavez or Wells? We have plenty of guys making outs and not getting on base, which are 2 of Casper's skills, unfortunately. If Chavez can play defense well and get on base, maybe he fits the bill better right now.
9
I honestly don't care that I'm in the minority on this one...Endy Chavez is certainly worth STARTING...whereas Casper Wells might be to someone who desperately needs to take a flyer on a guy who might hit for some pop...but Casper is a demonstrated NIGHTMARE when attempting to use him part time...and Endy Chavez's skills translate better to that role. He will work tough at bats...he will see a lot of pitches...he will draw some occasional walks...he will make contact...and he will play good defense at all of the positions. And he won't complain about not starting.
Right here right now..Casper Wells has ZERO value to the Mariners...even after Saunders' injury. Endy Chavez might have some small value.
10
And Harang is NOT sexy, but he and Saunders are both here to put up .500 records, save the pen, and get us to the trade deadline in contention. This is not a team currently constructed for long term success. We have a ton of one or two year guys, with a bunch of kids in a ridiculous pipeline to the bigs. If the kids can take over for the vets then we turn into the Rays. If they can't... then we can get more one-year stopgaps in the meantime while we wait on the next batch.
Harang provides us with better options, both now and later, than Garland did. He's fine. And if he blows up, what's the worst that happens? We set a few million dollars on fire (who cares) and call up Hultzen or Erasmo once their extra service year is guaranteed or health is fully recovered. Easy peasy.
Jack wants that +.500 year this year. No more messing around. I don't blame him, or his bosses if they are the ones mandating it. At least they're willing to pay for it a week into the season, which is not common.
Isn't commitment to winning and willingness to put the team's money where it's mouth is what we wanted to see around here? Why would that be a problem all of a sudden?
~G
11
My own "Hot Seat" reaction, just knee-jerk, was that Garland would be preferable -- for moderately 6-8 starts, in a vacuum. But that's just a quick reaction.
Would be interested in a more thoughtful comparison of the two. Hm.
...........
Good for you guys in slapping that weak stuff out of the paint -- the smack talk that the Harang move is stupidity on the M's part. I notice that when Gordon, Matt, Spec & Crew go there, the other blogs tend to simmer down pretty quick :- )
12
We made the call on Maurer, I imagine he stays in the rotation. We knew what Beavan is/was. That hasn't changed. But we punt after the terrible two starts he might not replicate again this year.
We have better options than Harang. Or ones with more upside, certainly. They're named Hultzen and Ramirez.
I especially dislike the panic here. 10 days ago we made a decision (the appropriate one, I think) that youth would better serve us at the end of the rotation. 4 starts in, we reject that decision.
I suppose you can say that getting Harang (for next to nothing, I admit) would have been done two months ago, if the same deal was available. Maybe. Well, probably.
But I dislike the lack of sticking to a plan, much more than the acquisition of Harang. BTW, I'm not conviced that Harang is much better, if any, over the course of a season, than Beavan.
The spin will be that the FO was continuing to seek a veteran arm for the end of the rotation, watch. This wasn't panic...it was part of a continuing search. Watch.
We have Hultzen and ERam about to be ready. What do you do IF they are ready soon?
I suppose I should feel good about the desire in the FO to win now. I would if I thought this move was really indicative of that. If Beavan doesn't hang some breaking balls last night, do we still make this move. If the answer is no, then some level of panic is occuring.
And I'm not buying the innings eating explanation. Beavan threw 190 innings last year. He can chew up innings, too.
Harang will be just ducky. I have no hatred of a possible 100 ERA+ guy. But there is certainly no guarantee that's what we're getting.
I'll root for him. And losing Loe is no loss.
But right now I see us as being adrift. And that's what worries me the most.
moe
13
Ramirez is not ready yet...he has dead arm syndrome per Baker...and has not been able to recover quickly from starts or even relief appearances. He is not an option yet. Hultzen can replace MAURER...but he can't replace Beavan without it looking like the Mariners are panicking to the people in the clubhouse. Adding a veteran with a high stop-loss on a short-term deal is like adding insurance...that's not panicking...that's being rational.
14
Mind you, I have never been high on Beavan. I think you can only get lucky on bringing up Silva clones that you "feel" are going to take an extra step before you get bit hard by the limitation of the archetype.
Swapping out Vargas for Saunders is lateral. I don't think anyone views that any other way.
Bringing in Maurer is obviously a roll of the dice. But 34 hitters is not enough to judge any kid on. Sorry. it just isn't.
But, if you bring in Garland or Harang, you have effectively swapped out 2012 Millwood.
What you have practically pre-determined is that in 2013 ... we are going to have a staff ERA+ of 98.
Does Harang have any upside? (I don't see it).
If he pitches like Millwood is there ANY chance that Hultzen will supplant him? IMO ... no. The chance is zero.
If you are SO fixated on having a reliable .500 pitcher in both the 3 and 4 spots on April 15th - that WILL NEVER CHANGE. There is no situation where Hultzen CAN supplant anyone other than a DL trip or Beavan. That's it. The fix is in - and by fix - I mean roster petrification.
The DOWN-side is Harange pitches competently. If so ... he is unmoveable ... and the Mariners repeat their team 98 ERA+ and pray for a 115 OPS+.
The "reasonable" standard for first roster moves (barring injury) is a month. No, you don't have to give Beavan and Maurer 18 starts before making a move, but TWO?!? Seriously?
Yes ... this is panic. And to me it feels like manager panic who simply doesn't LIKE developing pitchers. Based on previous years, I think Z understands it takes time to reasonably vet any new talent.
Yes ... this is panic. It is panic that is more than likely going to ossify the rotation. Perhaps Z will surprise me and simply cut Harang 10 starts from now when Hultzen and/or Erasmo are healthy and effective ... but I seriously doubt it. Harang won't be any more moveable than Millwood was last year. And if you are that risk-averse on young pitchers, I don't see how that changes 2 months from now.