Add new comment

What Seattle fans have forgotten ... for a player like McLemore to play 140 games a season, SOMEBODY is getting a day off 140 times a year.  The problem is NOT Ackley or Saunders.  That only seems to be a problem for an organization that became so fixated on the 9 starters that if someone wasn't playing 158 games a season, they were a wimp.
Braves - 1991 - their worst-to-first season ... Lonnie Smith 122 games, Gant 154, Justice, 109, Nixon 124.  Four OFs, for three spots, and ALL played more than 100 games.  ALL got more than 400 ABs.  And in the NL, there isn't a DH slot to create "half-days-off".
The Angels in 2009 had Vlad, Torii, Rivera and Matthews ALREADY on the roster, and went out and ADDED Abreu.  They didn't view this as a PROBLEM.  They viewed this as a SOLUTION.  If you've got 3 OF slots and a DH slot, then you've got enough PT for *FIVE* players to split, while all playing "full time".  Of course, when Vlad and Torii were ailing, there was some PT shifting, which is ANOTHER reason why having that flexibility as a PLANNED part of roster construction is vastly preferable to having to adjust on the fly.
In fairness to Hargrove, the Bavasi clubs were built WITHOUT depth.  They "wished" they had AAAA players on the bench.  So, some of the Hargrove play-til-you-drop mentality may have been forced upon him.  But, mostly, it was the mindset that you've got THESE 9 guys as starters, and your bench are simply guys who are here if someone gets hurt.  THAT mindset is what makes the Ackley/Saunders situation "appear" to be problematic.  It's not.  MLB managers have been cycling 4 bodies thru three OF slots for more than a century, and since the AL thinks pitchers shouldn't have to risk their OWN necks after throwing bean balls, in the AL, you've got 4 slots to cycle 5 guys thru.  If a manager can't handle that, he shouldn't be allowed to play OOTP5, much less be paid as a major leaguer.
What baffles ME is that the mindset seems to be, "What if BOTH of these guys turn out to be really, really good?"  (This is a PROBLEM?!?  Here, let me take your lottery winnings off you, so you don't have all those headaches associated with counting your money).
In truth, there is a very real possibility that one or both will NOT turn out to be productive.  Guess what?  That ISN'T the upside position.  Clement was supposed to be hitting .800 for the Ms in 2009, wasn't he?  EVERY prospect is a gamble ... even Strasburg.  Just because the odds are better for some doesn't mean that there are any guarantees.  If Strasburg turns out to be the next Brien Taylor, MLB will not award Washington 15 wins in compensation for their 15 million outlay. 
If Ackley and Carp and Saunders ALL hit .800 in 2010, *THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM*.  (It is highly unlikely, of course).  If Ackley and Carp and Saunders ALL hit .600 in 2010 ... THAT is a problem.  But, this is why good organizations work to find guys (and keep them around), like LaHair.  Sometimes those AAAA players actually fix those holes in their games and work out.  Just ask Ibanez.
The DOWNSIDE of everyone working out is putting together a Saunders/Vargas/French package to get somebody like Halladay when it will really help. 
Wak got a rep early in the season for riding his starters like Hargrove.  But, at the time, the bench was very, very thin talent wise.  When the bench was upgraded from Wlad and Cedeno to Hannahan and Langerhans, PT started to get more fluid.  No reason to believe that Wak cannot take advantage of having "too many" productive bats.