Add new comment

I think my take on Seattle veterans is a bit different than those mentioned above. May not be correct, but for me it fits the data.
1) From the day AROD was traded away until Z arrived, the veteran entitlement mentality was that vets were reliable and prospects not. Therefore, the preference was for as many veterans (and as few prospects) as possible. Minor leaguers were for use as trading chips for "reliability".
2) The club had actually ALREADY brought enough young talent together that this model could (and did) work for awhile - but only while ignoring that the key people in the successful year were either developed internally (like Edgar), or were acquired by trading away prospects that had ALREADY succeeded at the MLB level, (Griffey, Unit).
3) When Z arrived, the clear "intent" was to move toward a player development model. BUT ... the cupboard was bare when he arrived, so he was forced to fill in with veterans and wheel and deal as much as possible (from an empty house) to do what he could to accelerate the developmental arm of the org.
4) During the entire Bavasi era, the focus was on bringing in veterans to serve as full time regulars, (bench was an afterthought - and it was regular policy to fill in the RESERVES with minor league callus.
5) Last year, 2012, was the first season where the developmental arm of the club actually started providing numbers.
6) THIS season - for the first time since the Griffey/AROD era ... the BENCH is filled with veterans, while the starting lineup is filled with youth. Ibanez and Bay were intended to be Amaral and Blowers and Ducey and Roberto Kelley.
7) Injuries have "forced" the veterans into more active roles - but that was clearly not the intent with the initial roster build. They had a CHOICE to keep Casper Wells or Carp around and opted to go with Bay and Ibanez. At the time, the starting OF was Guti, Saunders and Morse. The DH was Morales.
Conclusion: While I was a huge Carp fan (still am), and hated to see him go specifically, I fully supported the morphing of player deployment which is actually a DRAMATIC change from the decade prior to 2013. IMO, there is a MASSIVE difference between bringing in Jose Vidro or Griffey to BE your DH ... compared to bringing in Ibanez and Bay to back up your OF and DH.
That said --- I definitely don't see ANY evidence of value in Ibanez (specifically) in regards to any positive mentoring impact.
In all of his years with Seattle, (pre-Philly), I don't recall ANY prospect improving. Nor during his stay in Philly.
Nor during his return to Seattle. In fact, the prospects either regressed (Ackley and Montero and Saunders), or at best ... roughly continued previous production (Smoak). I would say it's a reach to attribute Seager's nominal 2013 improvement to Ibanez.
So, while I support the "concept" of the veteran BENCH ... I would say it has worked well in terms of direct productivity and pretty poorly in terms of aiding player development.
I definitely think veterans can be VERY helpful in prospect development - offering advice and relating experience about what they did in response to slumps or struggles against a particular pitch, etc. But, I would expect such benefit would be VERY spotty and player-combo specific. (I would not expect ANY player to be helpful to "every" prospect). At the same time, I see the majority of the talk of "protection" or needing a "true MOTO hitter" as being largely overstated.