Monday a.m. stuff

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 9:31 AM CST in News

Nothing Rangers-related this morning.

There is the Erik Bedard story out there, with a trade between the O's and M's supposedly going down shortly.

And for those who are hollering that the M's are getting a steal, check out Jeff Sullivan's various reactions. Or Dave Cameron's. Or Derek Zumsteg's. Knowledgeable M's fans don't think this is a good deal for Seattle.

Tweet Comment 45 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

M fans that are upset should

stop smoking crack or whatever drug they are on. Yes they are giving up talent to acquire Bedard but the trade is a no brainer IMO for the M's. Bedard has lowered his ERA, WHIP, and BAA every year since hitting the big leagues five years ago. While last year may have been his best, 06 was very good as well with a 3.76 ERA in 190 or so innings. He is a proven AL starter who can eat inning, with a low era and WHIP, and has proven himself to be a winner in a losing organization (sorry O's fans.)
There are only 25 spots on any active roster and studs like Bedard make the remaining 24 spots easier to manage. Good pitching trumps good batting!
My only regret is the Rangers could not/did not/would not put something together to get Bedard here. At $7 to $9 million for 08 (depending on arb) he looks to be a steal compared to recent FA contracts for starting pitchers.

by Bigfan16 on Jan 28, 2008 9:49 AM CST reply actions

Bedard

He also has never thrown 200 innings in a season, and has made 30 starts in a season only once.

And he'll be a free agent after 2009.

The Mariners look like they gave up a big chunk of their future to ensure a 2nd place finish the next two seasons.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 9:55 AM CST up reply actions

Sexon and Beltre

They are coming off the books pretty soon right?

Maybe they plan to use that money to try and lock him up long term.

by SaltyGoesYard on Jan 28, 2008 9:57 AM CST up reply actions

Bavasi

With Bavasi as GM, he could really screw up this team in the next two years. By then, Bedard may not want to stay with the team. Besides, there will be other teams to match and/or exceed the M's offer.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Jan 28, 2008 10:00 AM CST up reply actions

Supposedly...

...Bedard isn't interested in an extension. He wants to test the f.a. market.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 10:01 AM CST up reply actions

Sorry Adam

But not throwing 200 innings or making 30 starts doesn't mean you are a heap of trash. The ONLY way this trade is good for us is if Bedard doesn't resign. If he does, they traded a bunch of maybes for an ACE. Period. They might beat out the Halos this year, or next year for that matter. If this was the Rangers, I wouldn't want it to go down unless I felt he brought us reasonable close (read: just as close as it brings the M's) to the division title, and we could work out an extension before the deal.

I know Adam Jones is gonna be better than Griffey, Upton, Granderson, Jeter, Arod, and Johan combined... but none of the dudes they are giving up besides Sherrill have played in the bigs yet. This is the kind of trade we are stocking up our system to have the maneuverability to pull off, and if Bedard extends this is a loss. Right now it is too early to tell, but everyone being so happy the M's are trading for Bedard is ridiculous.

by trident on Jan 28, 2008 10:14 AM CST up reply actions

Give me a break

But not throwing 200 innings or making 30 starts doesn't mean you are a heap of trash.

Who the hell said he was a heap of trash?

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 10:16 AM CST up reply actions

Nobody

But I feel like the reigning emotion on here is joy that the M's sold the farm for a guy who's arm is about to fall off. Bedard has averaged 164 innings per season each of his four years, and 189 the last two seasons. Not exactly Bartolo Colon.

His ERA, WHIP, and BB/9 have fallen every year, while his ERA+ and K/9 have risen. Last year he showed the ability to reign terror on the AL East, playing 20% of his games vs the Yanks and BoSox and another 20% against the Jays and Rays. His ace projection rang true and he's worked with Leo Mazzone for 2 years.

Sherrill looks good. Jones sounds good. Tillman is supposed to be good one day (but he is so young and unrefined). Mickolio might be a servicable bullpen arm and Butler is 75638301 years from the bigs. Nobody IS great BUT Bedard in this deal. That's not a bad haul.

I LOVE this deal if I am an O's fan because Bedard does nothing for us the next two years. I LOVE this deal if I am an M's fan and Bedard resigns. I LOVE this deal as a Rangers fan if he doesn't resign.

I just don't really understand the overwhelming sense that we are gaining on the M's by this trade. Sure, we may look a lot better at the start of 2010 and they may look worse if Bedard won't re-up, but they still have a good team (easier for them to convince FAs to sign there than here) and a decent payroll. It's not like they have to be stagnant for 2 more years while we improve, they are still allowed to sign/trade for their benefit. Sexson could net a prospect, same for Johjima. Truinfel might pan out, etc.

by trident on Jan 28, 2008 10:47 AM CST up reply actions

Short term pain, long term gain

Most of us feel the Rangers don't have a chance in 2008 anyway, so anything that potentially adds to Seattle's position this year -- but perhaps hurts them in the long run is good news for 2010.

Of course, this depends on the final package. But if they are without both Bedard and a cheap, studly young outfielder in 2010 it helps the Rangers at a time they'll be in much better position to compete.

Besides, Bedard is good, but not Peavy good in my opinion. And they still have a very mediocre offense. The Rangers outscored them last year even with several slumps, trades, and young players in the lineup. I think they will again in 2008.

None of this makes this a bad deal for Seattle -- if they add a big bat to the lineup somehow, they're in a good position to compete in 2008. But it's pretty risky, since LAA looks strong, and the wild card looks very tough.

hurlerhurley has to drink a 6 pack just to have one for each of his usernames.

by t ball on Jan 28, 2008 11:24 AM CST up reply actions

AJM once again you are

correct. Bedard has not thrown 200 innings, but he has averaged 164 innings over the past 4 years. Every year his ERA, WHIP and BAA are getting better. Nice trends for a someone who will 29 in two months.

The real question is what is 164 innings with an ERA of 3.83 (4 year averages) worth??? In todays market it is worth quite a bit.

by Bigfan16 on Jan 28, 2008 10:39 AM CST up reply actions

Prediction:

M's trade the farm. Bedard hurts his arm just after the All-Star break during the 2008 season and is out until the end of 2009.

"I've learned that before I open my mouth, I should look both ways for midgets." - Denny Crain

by mtex on Jan 28, 2008 10:04 AM CST up reply actions

I don't get it

I've been following their reaction to a possible Bedard-Adam Jones + trade, and I just don't understand.

Their argument seems to be this: We shouldn't trade what will be a very good OF plus other lesser talents because we aren't close enough to contending yet. This mov makes us better, but doesn't make us good enough to win it all.

But my question is: Isn't it harder to find a top of the rotation starter than a good OFer? Especially on team that already has Ichiro, so one spot is filled. Maybe this is me coming from a Ranger perspective, but even though they have filled a hole/created a hole, wouldn't you rather have a hole in the OF than in your No. 1 spot?

I don't think they are getting screwed, I think they are making a concerted effort to get better now and are trading away part of their future to do it. It's the type of move I hope the Rangers will make in 2011-2012 when they are contending and figure out which of their young guys haven't panned out.

Basically, I think they're overvaluing Adam Jones. I don't know much about him, but he would have to put up ManRam numbers in Baltimore in order to justify the amount of gnashing of teeth that's going on over there right now.

by GhettoBear04 on Jan 28, 2008 10:12 AM CST reply actions

Another point

Bedard retains his trade value in Seattle. If the Mariners offense is really as weak as it looks, then they can flip Bedard to some other team (i.e., the Cubs) who may be contending and willing to part with players in late July for a pennant run that they weren't willing to part with now.

So the M's get to see what having 2 aces does for them this year, and then can be open to rebuilding their farm system if it doesn't work out.

The only way this hurts Seattle is if Bedard gets injured.

by JBImaknee on Jan 28, 2008 10:22 AM CST up reply actions

Too bad

They will be delusional and believe they are still competing.

by TheBZA on Jan 28, 2008 10:23 AM CST up reply actions

trading Bedard

You have a point, but the Cubs don't have a singular minor league talent like Adam Jones. Very few teams do, maybe Bruce with the Reds, Maybin with the Marlins, and J. Upton with the D'backs. If the Mariners decided to trade Bedard midseason, they would likely have to take a package with more depth, and less star power at the top.

Juevos Daniels: biggest stones in the business.

by tricer on Jan 28, 2008 11:36 AM CST up reply actions

Not Quite There

If this trade goes down, you have two years of Bedard. That's it. If you sign an extension great, but don't count on that for now.

The next question is, will this team be competitive enough to give Bedard pause when other teams throw mountains of cash in his direction? I don't see it.

Bavasi, in my opinion, is a horrible GM. Sadly, his success last season has only extended his tenure in Seattle. Many look at Sexson and Beltre and use this as proof that Bavasi is a poor GM. The thing is other GM's were lined up to sign these two players should they choose not to go to Seattle. But how many GM's were lineup up to have Vidro be their everyday DH? Bavasi has been filling out his rotation with players like Bautista, Silva, Washburn, and Horacio Ramirez. None of them came cheap, and they are all about league average.

You are right to say that a pitcher like Bedard is much harder to find than an everyday player like Jones, and that sometimes you got to trade some future success to improve right now. However, Bavasi does not seem like the kind of GM who can the Mariners (even with Bedard) to the next level. This is why it is a bad deal.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Jan 28, 2008 10:37 AM CST up reply actions

For those who think that the M's.....

Will win the West this year are forgetting that they overachieved last season.

Based on the #'s that team should have finished with (roughly) 75 wins last season. So even if Bedard posts the numbers he did last year, they should expect to finish with roughly the same record

I'm on my way out the door, can someone with a little more time backup my claim? My lazy ass would appreciate it.

by TheBZA on Jan 28, 2008 10:22 AM CST reply actions

I dunno BZA

Seattle won 88 games. So say they don't accomplish that feat again and lets base it on your 75 wins(which Im not sure where you got that from). Bedard won 13 games with a very very weak Oriole team. That would put them back at 88.

I really don't think seatlle wins less than 80 games without Bedard. So add him to the mix and ur closer to 90-95 wins. Bedard should win at least 13 games and at times looks like he could win 20. The offense in Seattle isn't as hurendous as it was in Balti so Im just assuming he wins closer to 20 than 13.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 10:46 AM CST up reply actions

No

That doesn't make any sense.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 10:49 AM CST up reply actions

How doesn't it

BZA is saying that Seattle should have won 75 games. Adding Bedards win total(13) from 07 puts Seattle back at the amount of games they actually won in 07, 88.

Assuming Seattle only wins 75 games this year and not 88, adding Bedard doesn't make them any better in the win coulom. I doubt thats the case though Adam. Like I said Bedard should win at least his 13 games again. Im sure Seattle doesn't plummet down to 75 wins like BZA assumes.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 10:59 AM CST up reply actions

Because...

You don't evaluate the impact of a pitcher on a team by taking the number of wins he had for another team the previous season, and adding it to his new team's win total.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 11:01 AM CST up reply actions

Understood,

but you have to assume he at least wins as many games as he did. I can't see Bedard having less wins this year because of how dominant at times he was in 07. Im sure he will win more based on a better offensive team.

What should you base something like that on?

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 11:05 AM CST up reply actions

Your argument

does not make sense.

Bedard will not make them 13 wins better. No pitcher is that good.

And they overachieved based on their Pythagorean W/L record, which is a better indicator of how good a team is than their actual W/L record.

Eh.

by SteveOla @ Lone Star Ball on Jan 28, 2008 11:11 AM CST up reply actions

Just because a team overachieves

doesn't mean they won't match their win total from the previous year. A lot of factors contribute to that. Team work, health, manager, players.

Assumin Jeff Weaver is gone and Bedard is added, the difference in wins is 6. They should accumulate 6 more wins correct. I made a mistake by not knowing how that worked and lucas cleared that up.

They have a good shot at winning more not less, imo, then they did in 07.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions

It's not that simple

You're closer now, but you cannot simply take Bedard - Weaver and come up with a new win total. How much run support did they get? How does player development and personnel changes affect the projected number of runs scored and prevented?

In the end, 2007's win total doesn't mean very much. You're much better off taking the collective individuals and projecting their 2008 performances and adding it all up to guess at a win total that way.

Adding a good pitcher only means that they improve their chances of winning, their expected win total. They were pretty lucky last year, and they would do very well to come close to 88 wins this year, even with Bedard.

hurlerhurley has to drink a 6 pack just to have one for each of his usernames.

by t ball on Jan 28, 2008 11:28 AM CST up reply actions

Also...

What is the difference between Adam Jones in RF and, say, Kevin Mench or Brad Wilkerson in RF?

Dave Cameron says he thinks that adding Bedard means a net gain of 2-3 wins in 2008. I think that may be a little low, but it isn't a whole lot more than that.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

Better offensive team?

The Mariners are a better offensive team than the Orioles? Really?

I guess I don't have any numbers to back that up, but haven't the M's been particularly anemic on offense ever since Edgar Martinez retired?

"I've learned that before I open my mouth, I should look both ways for midgets." - Denny Crain

by mtex on Jan 28, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

The M's score 794 runs compared to the

O's 733. Thats a difference of 61 runs.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 11:25 AM CST up reply actions

Win Shares

If you buy into Win Shares, Bedard had 19 (the Hardball Times version of the stat, which is slightly changed from Bill James' version) in 2007. Divide by 3 (which will then give you have many games he contributed to the win column), and you get 6.3 wins. The best pitcher, according to Win Shares was Sabathia with 24 (8 wins).

by Excel Hearts Choi on Jan 28, 2008 11:39 AM CST up reply actions

Im not sure Im explaining this right,

do you still not understand, AJM?

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 11:03 AM CST up reply actions

Well...

...using pitcher wins doesn't really explain anything. But at the least, it shouldn't be Bedard's total wins. It should be the difference in Bedard's 13 wins and the number of wins his replacement would have if Bedard didn't end up in Seattle.

Austin, my God. They're having such a hard time hanging on to what's left of what everyone loves about it. -- Patterson Hood

by Lucas on Jan 28, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions

Alright then,

do you see them losing less or more than 88 wins this year based on the aquisition?

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 11:09 AM CST up reply actions

I bet

They win less than 88 wins. Their offense is anemic, and they've made no moves to address this weakness (Unless you want to count signing Miguel Cairo). The only splash they've made is Carlos Silva and (possibly) Bedard. You factor in the fact they overachieved last year (see my post below) and the inevitable injury bug, I believe they will be worse than last year. Could I be wrong? Possibly, but this really is one of the worst everyday lineups in the league.

And am I the only one that expects Bedard to miss some serious time this season?

by TheBZA on Jan 28, 2008 11:33 AM CST up reply actions

I dont like the lineup at all,

but they did score 794 runs, it's hard to look past that. Say we overachieve this year, would you go and say it won't happen in 09? Of course not, you would hope we carry all the positives into the 09 season and capitalize on what we did from 08. Im sure Seattle feels the same way that's why I can't see them losing a lot less than they did.

The offense does stink and given that their cleanup spot last year only hit 8 hrs, you have to assume they will address it come midseason or next year when they have a chance at getting better players. Anyway, pitching will help carry this team if they do win 88 or more games. I don't think they are relying on offense to carry their team.

""I love GOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLD" blueglovelefty

by NYTXFAN on Jan 28, 2008 11:52 AM CST up reply actions

um yeah

you would say it probably won't happen again.

i don't think any team has consistently outperformed their Pythagorean and in terms of a particular guys having career years, go look at the chicago white sox.

obviously, there can be reasons why a certain individual suddenly becomes better but the above would be the general rules.

by ab03 on Jan 28, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions

I think you're missing the point

794 runs was good for 12th place (Rangers finished at 7th). So, roughly average. Meanwhile their pitchers gave up 813 runs, placing them in 20th place (Rangers finished 14th). It is by this logic that the pythagoras formula shows that they won too many games. It says that accounting for the performance the team gave, they should have won 79 games instead of 88. Expecting that to happen again is just not intelligent. You might get lucky and you beat your run differential but you can't count on it. That's why you go out and add a few big bats in Free Agency. Oh wait, Seattle didn't do that! If they wait until the trade deadline they wasted a number of games and have to surrender talent. Free Agency was their time to make a splash.

And pitching will carry them? The whole knock on Bavasi is that he overpays mediocre pitchers to long term contracts (Washburn, Silva, etc.) You can expect league average from these guys, nothing more. I know that this is simplifying things but you can't COUNT on beating the run differential, you have to do something about it. Trading for Bedard addresses this problem, but the question is, was the cost too high?

by TheBZA on Jan 28, 2008 12:13 PM CST up reply actions

Also...

They lost Jose Guillen -- probably their 2nd best hitter last season -- and apparently are going to replace him with Brad Wilkerson.

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 28, 2008 1:06 PM CST up reply actions

79 wins

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/344895_kolloen26.html

Based on their Pythagorean winning percentage, the Mariners should have won 79 games last year instead of 88.

Bavasi's theory is that the lopsided losses by the back end of the rotation threw off the numbers, and made it look like the Mariners were much worse than they are....

....In Batista starts, the Mariners were outscored 127-134. In Washburn starts, they were outscored 144-152....

...The 2007 Mariners didn't get outscored because Ramirez and Weaver were getting shelled.

They got outscored because their starting first baseman hit .205, their designated hitter had six home runs and their left fielder led the league in watching balls drop in front of him....

etc., etc.

by TheBZA on Jan 28, 2008 11:06 AM CST up reply actions

Good

If Seattle sends away a few good young players for two years of Bedard, all the better for the Rangers in the long term.

hurlerhurley has to drink a 6 pack just to have one for each of his usernames.

by t ball on Jan 28, 2008 10:25 AM CST reply actions

Hurley Video

MiLB.com is showing select games from their 2007 minors archive for free. If you are registered with MLB.com [reg for free if you aren't] you can watch the viddies. I assume they are all AAA games, but if anybody finds a lower-level game involving the Texas farm system lemme know.

Start here - http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/multimedia/video.jsp

Click "Select Date" and you can search for a date that interests you - RFP might help you find a Redhawks game from 2007 that tickles your fancy - http://www.my.calendars.net/farmprobs/. You might start with the August 16th game where Eric Hurley goes 7.0 IP with just 1 run allowed. Desi Relaford hits into an around-the-horn triple-play in the bottom of the 5th if that sorta thing interests you. I got a pretty smooth picture even when I clicked the full-screen option. Enjoy.

The Johnson Treatment

by shroomer on Jan 28, 2008 10:46 AM CST reply actions