Thursday Bullet Points
by Jeff Sullivan on Nov 19, 2009 10:11 PM PST
in Miscellaneous
- The hot rumor of the day is that the M's and Tigers have been talking about a three-team deal involving Brandon Morrow and Edwin Jackson. I'm only bringing this one up because the M's have been linked to Jackson before, so I can believe in their possible interest. That said:
(1) Jackson isn't very good. Don't believe the ERA. He took a step forward, to be sure, as he's cut his walks in three straight years, but he's still a flyball guy with come-and-go command and stuff that doesn't get as many strikeouts as you'd expect, and when you put it all together, he's (maybe) a #3 with upside. Ignore anyone that focuses on his first half while ignoring his second. That isn't how these things work. Nor is it reasonable to focus on Jackson's 2009 while ignoring his prior track record. Pitchers develop differently than hitters, to be sure, but they're still prone to regression from presumed breakthroughs, as we saw from guys like Edinson Volquez, Ervin Santana, and John Danks. So just because Jackson improved in 2009 doesn't mean he's necessarily going to sustain or continue that improvement going forward. You have to play the odds. Plus the guy he was in 2009 wasn't terrific in the first place.
(2) We have no idea if, in this scenario, Jackson would be coming to us anyway.
I don't know if this rumor has legs. As is the case with every rumor that comes up around this time of year, my conclusion is that, yeah, it could happen, but it probably won't.
- You know what's really unfunny? Any joke about the post-game spread. For some reason, people love to make these jokes. They make them all the time. And they're always terrible. Knock it off.
- Free agency is upon us, and as such, all 30 teams are free to negotiate with Russell Branyan. If you're someone that really wants him back, I wouldn't be concerned. If you're someone that really doesn't want him back, I wouldn't get excited. Branyan is one of Z's guys, and though nothing in the offseason is guaranteed, I would be really, really surprised if Branyan weren't back as next year's 1B/DH. Branyan's going to look at the market, but once he realizes that no one's offering huge money for an aging slugger with a bad back, I'd expect him and Z to agree to terms. If I made 100 different roster predictions for the 2010 Mariners, something like 97 of them would involve Russell Branyan.
- Dave wrote about the Ryan Doumit possibility last night. A lot of people are trying to link the M's to John Lackey. You shouldn't listen to them. You should probably listen to Dave. If I tried to rank rumors on a five-point scale from really likely (1) to really unlikely (5), Doumit would probably rank a 2. The Jackson stuff would be a 3 or a 4.
I would really like to have Ryan Doumit on the team
Poochie - November 19, 2009
I too believe that is something I would enjoy
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
If he comes as cheap as Dave thinks he might, absolutely. I love the guy.
Teej - November 19, 2009
Maybe it's the hair, versatility and smiles, but he reminds me of Swisher.
Teej - November 19, 2009
Was it Deanna who used to point out how much he looks like Snelling?
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
I don't recall, but I see it for sure.
Teej - November 19, 2009
I believe so.
Goose - November 19, 2009
I also think you're right
Edgar for Pres - November 20, 2009
Maybe it's that he could steal at bats from Rob Johnson.
abender20 - November 20, 2009
I have wanted him for years and am upset Dave has stolen my idea and passed off as his own
Poochie - November 19, 2009
The pirates would be crazy to give him up cheaply
Edgar for Pres - November 20, 2009
I also would love to have Doumit here and would be extremely happy were we to acquire him
But I think the Pirates might value him a little more than Dave thinks.
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
But he has a hell of a lot more access than I do, so what do I know
If they are going to let him go for cheap, then absofuckinglutely we should do our best to get him.
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
Wasn't he supposed to be part of their core to build around like as soon as last year?
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
I theorize a utility catcher is worth more for a team trying to jump to 90 wins then it is for a team like the Pirates
Poochie - November 19, 2009
He's really a utility catcher to them at this point?
I honestly though they valued him way, way higher than that, especially in 2008.
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
He's never been much of a catcher, and he's only played in a 100 games once
I could see them trying to shed the contract since they probably aren’t going to be headed to the post season in the next few years.
Poochie - November 19, 2009
Well by all means then, we should try to get him
If that’s the case he’s an undervalued asset.
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
Russell Branyan was a spark on the 2009 Mariners' team.
Like Justin Morneau, the Twins may have beaten the Yankees if it had not been for the back problems and who knows how far the Mariners would have gone if Branyan did’nt have his back problems that shortened his season. Teams need their sparks in the lineup.
44FAN - November 19, 2009
I don't know about sparks, but he was a very very good hitter
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
Hey Z, you hear that?
Stop wasting your time looking for a middle of the order bat! You just need to find some “spark”!
Eyebrows - November 20, 2009
He hasn't pitched in six years!
waldo rojas - November 20, 2009
But he sparks!
pdb - November 20, 2009
I wish I was sparking right now.
Sec 108 - November 20, 2009
Edwin Jackson
Based on the Fangraphs pitch type values, he survives on his slider. It’s been a money pitch for him the last two seasons. The velocity on the fastball obviously sets it up really well. You’d think a guy who can throw as hard as he can would get a lot of mileage out of a curve or a change up, but he doesn’t have either as a reasonable offering.
Naturally, with a fastball / slider combo, he eats right handers alive. Wait, what? He doesn’t? That’s weird.
Generally, his splits are about even. Righties have posted a .793 OPS against him and lefties a .780 for his career. In 2009, righties were on track with a .774 OPS against while lefties were .688. Obviously we’ve found our fluke. 1.7% of PAs resulted in home runs against lefties, while 4.6% against righties. Otherwise, there was no measurable difference between his probability stats for either split.
Since he’s never shown a measurable level of success against lefties before, I think we can probably chalk this up as bizarre and unsustainable. Unless someone has a rationale for why a right handed fastball / slider thrower posted a reverse platoon split.
The Typical Idiot Fan - November 19, 2009
I'm definitely open to Jackson having learned something to help him control lefties
His K/BB improvement against lefties was huge over a small but reasonable sample. I’m just not buying the rest.
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
Improvement.
For 2009 I show:
vs Right – 17.3% K rate – 7.5% walk rate
vs Left – 18.7% K rate – 8.2% walk rate
So that’s a roughly 3% increase in strikeouts and a 3% decrease in walks to left handers over his career totals (~15% K and 11% BB vs lefties, including 2009’s numbers). Pretty dramatic improvement for someone who apparently doesn’t throw a changeup or curveball much or well. If we’re to entertain the idea, where the hell is it coming from?
The Typical Idiot Fan - November 20, 2009
No idea
I sent the same split to Dave the other day.
Jeff Sullivan - November 20, 2009
Who would be a #1?
Tube - November 19, 2009
I don't know?
Branyan?
Jeff Sullivan - November 19, 2009
I hear Griffey's probably going to sign back on.
Teej - November 19, 2009
That already happened
Poochie - November 19, 2009
Oh shit so I was right.
Teej - November 20, 2009
Hopefully Matt Holliday!
Poochie - November 19, 2009
This is all speculation but,
Here is a list of Detroit players with significant money attached to them in 2010:
Unmovable:
Magglio Ordonez: 1 Year, 18 Million
Dontrelle Willis: 1 Year, 12 Million
Nate Robertson: 1 Year, 10 Million
Jeremy Bonderman: 1 Year, 12.5 Million
Carlos Guillen: 2 Years, 26 Million
Movable:
Miguel Cabrera: 6 Years, 126 Million
Brandon Inge: 1 Year, 6.6 Million
Curtis Granderson: 3 years, 23.75 Million (Option Not Included)
Justin Verlander: Arbitration 2 (3.675 Million last year)
Gerald Laird: Arbitration 3 (2.8 Million last year)
Edwin Jackson: Arbitration 2 (2.2 Million last year)
Bobby Seay: Arbitration 3 (1.3 Million last year)
Like Jeff said, we don’t even know if the Mariners would be getting anything from the Tigers period in the supposed three-way trade let alone a player with a sizable contract.
Miguel Cabrera: rumors have been inferred by the knowledge that the Tigers want to shed pay-roll, but nothing specific. He really doesn’t make sense for the Mariners even if he were available. That is a monster contract, we have a spot open at first base but Cabrera is a righty and this past year he provided ~3 million dollars in excess value over a free agent. It just doesn’t feel like a Jack Z. move even if Cabrera is available
.
Brandon Inge: I could see but would still be very unlikely. Inge is nifty with the glove and a short commitment. The problems are that Inge is also a righty and strikes out a ton. Inge’s power is pretty good, he hit 6 non pull homeruns this year and looking at Hit Tracker most of his homeruns would be out of any park. I could see this happening but at the same time I don’t think that Inge would be in high demand by most teams and therefore Z wouldn’t rush into a deal for him unless it was too good to be true.
Curtis Granderson: I know a lot of people here are Curtis Granderson fans (as a human being I like him, as a player I am suspect of him.) Regardless, my analysis of this possibility starts and ends with Granderson’s marginal value to the M’s is lower then it would be for other teams because of the presence of Guitierrez and Ichiro.
Justin Verlander: Sure, in magic land maybe
Edwin Jackson: I am a fan of Jackson, but he is one of those players I would rather see someone else take the risk on. It’s hard to know what Jack’s style is when it comes to risking money & prospects. The Putz trade was worse case scenario all the players we got busted with non-performance. The Snell trade he gave up a questionable value in Clement and for worse case scenario Snell would cost us 4.3 next year and Wilson walks. But to get Jackson it would cost prospects and we would have to pay him ~4.5 million next year and at least 6.5 the next. It hasn’t been Jackk’s style so far but he also hasn’t been in this situation so far either so I feel it is hard to say.
Gerald Laird: I suppose it is possible since catcher is kind of a question mark but Laird is bad…and fat…and ugly. I think it’s a waste of resource that Zduriencik wouldn’t make. I figure with Alvila and Ryan, Gerald Laird is a non-tender candidate.
Bobby Seay: About the most significant thing Seay done in his career is circumvent the draft. Seay doesn’t seem likely since I can’t imagine the Mariners wasting money on mediocre relievers at this point and Detroit has needed every reliever they could get since .
So what can you take from all of this? Absolutely nothing. It was just me kind of working through the process of a hypothetical trade with puzzle pieces missing. Sorry for wasting your time
Trenchtown - November 19, 2009
1). You are over thinking this big time
2)
I don’t see how the presence of those two changes Granderson’s value, left field is open and things can change in three years.
Poochie - November 19, 2009
So...
You don’t see how needing to play a player out of position would make them less valuable to a team when compared to a team that would not need that player to play out of position, or worse, has a need at that position?
Trenchtown - November 20, 2009
Out of position? Granderson is an outfielder, and it's not like he's Andrum Jones in center
Poochie - November 20, 2009
Horizontal symmetry dyslexia?
abender20 - November 20, 2009
I think I got that
Poochie - November 20, 2009
Okay yeah so why would the Mariners want to pick up average talent and not many years for significant dollars for and/or significant talent is the question.
Smart people don’t often trade for old people with a lot of money remaining on their contracts who are on the downside of their careers. And I personally think we’re run by smart people now.
OlSalty - November 19, 2009
Or the end of their contracts, I meant.
OlSalty - November 20, 2009
Because Edwin Jackson still has considerable upside
Even though some teams are going to put too much weight on his ERA or even his FIP. Jackson has the ability to be great and he might have taken a step towards that this past season.
Trenchtown - November 20, 2009
I'm not in the market for giving up a young someone that can be great for an old someone that can be great
As the rumors tend to state.
cwel87 - November 20, 2009
Young some one: 25 years old.
Old some one: 26 years old.
Kind of a wash there, don’t you think? Difference comes in contract and ability to contribute this year.
DKulich44 - November 20, 2009
I'm not talking so much in age as I am in team control
My mistake.
But nevertheless, Morrow is more erratic but has a much higher ceiling. And, in that, Edwin Jackson would be a marginal return at best for Morrow if he’s all that got shipped our way.
cwel87 - November 20, 2009
Yeah that's what I figured you meant...
However it does seem that E-Jack is older. Keep in mind too that Jackson was as highly touted as anyone when he was in the minors, perhaps even more than Morrow. They both have pretty high ceilings, Jackson just didn’t get off to the best start in the majors. If it’s straight up, I’m probably not on board, but with a 3rd team involved it probably will include a lot more players changing teams, and I trust Jack to make the right move. I won’t miss Morrow much if we get a good return.
DKulich44 - November 20, 2009
Isn't Jackson worth Morrow?
Hypothetically.
Mariner John - November 20, 2009
I haven't decided
Jeff Sullivan - November 20, 2009
I guess how I feel is that Morrow for Jackson would be fair
but we could probably get more for Morrow than Jackson.
Mariner John - November 20, 2009
I had a conversation with some friends today, and I was kind of torn.
I lean toward Morrow, but part of me thinks he’s a lost cause after all he’s been through. If I had to pick one for the next three or four years, I’d probably take Morrow. But Jackson could figure it out, too.
Teej - November 20, 2009
I'm leaning toward Morrow since he misses bats like a crazy person.
And he walks people like a crazy person. I’m still holding on to that slim hope Morrow turns into a number 2 starter.
Slurvey - November 20, 2009
Morrow's sw. strike % as a starter= 10.2%
Jackson’s was 9.8% over a much, much larger sample. There’s a difference, and I’m not just ignoring it, but i think the whole ‘Morrow misses bats and Jackson doesn’t’ thing is based on looking at Morrow’s numbers as a reliever.
marc w - November 20, 2009
Pretty much sums it up
Morrow’s arbitration status is the only thing that makes him valuable to me.
edddgar - November 20, 2009
The way I view it, is which guy has a better chance to be a solid #3 starter for us
since both have command issues that make it hard to imagine them ever being anything ore than a #3 type. Jackson is pretty much at that level or close to it right now. Morrow may not even be ready for a big league rotation spot yet.
I’d make that deal.
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
Of course Jackson is about to get expensive and has two years left while Morrow is not and has four
Jeff Sullivan - November 20, 2009
Fair point, I should have investigated that.
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
Depends on whether I want to Win Now or not
Poochie - November 20, 2009
Is it unreasonable to expect that Morrow could be similar in value to Jackson next season?
Morrow definitely has better stuff and the ability to miss more bats, and going into the season knowing he’s a starter should help his mindset. Jackson’s still all over the place, and isn’t a buy-low option anymore. Plus, Morrow has ace potential while as Jeff said, Jackson is more of a #3. I don’t really like the idea of trading them straight up.
I Lick Squirrels - November 20, 2009
I think most people still worry about Morrow's health and durability as a starter
Edgar for Pres - November 20, 2009
I worry about his run prevention as a starter
CKel - November 20, 2009
I guess if you think Morrow has ace potential then you have an argument,.
I have a hard time imagining a guy with his command issues ever being a ace.
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
Randy Johnson had no idea where the ball was going when he was Morrow's age.
Not saying Morrow has that talent, but pitchers learn to find the zone as they age much more often than batters do.
Sec 108 - November 20, 2009
Well that is Jackson's problem too. And it's not like Morrow misses a ton of more
bats then Jackson does when they start.
I don’t know, if everything clicks for both guys Morrow probably is a bit better, but Jackson is pretty much a safe bet to at least be a #3 or #4 with the potential if everything clicks to be a #2.
Morrow right now may not even be a starting pitcher at this point for a major league team. If everything clicks then yeah he could be a #1 starter.
The way I look at it:
Max Potential: Morrow #1, Jackson #2
Current Level: Morrow #5, Jackson #3/#4
Likelihood down the road: Morrow #3, Jackson #3
Add in that Jackson has at least proven he could be a mid rotation at this point, and Morrow hasn’t, I probably make the deal
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
If you're assuming they have the same likelihood down the road, why would you make the trade?
Morrow is cheaper and has more years of team control left, and the Mariners are going to have to get extremely lucky to win in 2010, or even in 2011. The way I see it, to win soon, a lot of players are going to have to start exceeding expectations and performing closer to their potential. I think Morrow is a better bet to go crazy in ’10 or ’11 than Jackson.
Morrow is a valuable trading chip, but I’d rather see him moved for position players than a pitcher who isn’t that much different from him and is already arbitration eligible.
I Lick Squirrels - November 20, 2009
Fair point. Although I think they both end up as #3 guys, Morrow
is riskier given his lack of workload or starting pitching experience in general. I think if you get Jackson, you get a guy who is a decent bet to be a #3 type starter going forward. Morrow, although I believe he’ll get to that level, has a longer way to go to get to that level and runs the risk of never getting there.
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
Well you're massively overestimating Edwin Jackson as a pitcher
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
By stating he's a #3 or #4 starter currently?
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
Yes
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
So you disagree with Jeff's assessment of him?>
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
Jeff: he's (maybe) a #3 with upside
You: but Jackson is pretty much a safe bet to at least be a #3 or #4 with the potential if everything clicks to be a #2.
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
And what about Graham?
You think he’s a 5 with the potential to be…a 5? What?
marc w - November 20, 2009
He's a really weird volatile pitcher with the stuff to be amazing, shitty control, and a habit of not missing bats despite said stuff
He’s somewhere between ‘above average’ and ‘replacement level’
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
Ok, and what's your opinion of Brandon Morrow as a starter?
It can’t possibly be better than that description of Jackson
marc w - November 20, 2009
Edwin Jackson, but cheaper and without the weird stuff-playing-down-ness
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
But Morrow's stuff does play down as a starter
his tRA as a starter is pretty close to 6, and while it’s still a small sample, there are two years (of small samples) that look almost identical.
One of them has shown the ability to be fringe-average for a year, and one of them hasn’t. Morrow’s got 2 more years of club control, and that’s big, but I’d understand the antipathy more if you thought Morrow had a good chance at getting to Jackson’s 2009 in the next 3 years. I’m not so sure. I’d be pretty much OK with a swap, and I certainly wouldn’t lose sleep if we hold onto Morrow. I’m just surprised by your vehemence on this.
marc w - November 20, 2009
Morrow's got consistently better swinging strike percentages.
Which is really what I mean by his stuff not playing down as much. Jackson doesn’t miss as many bats as he should.
Also, I don’t really want Morrow on the team. I don’t like his skill set at all, and I am totally in favour of trading him away. But that if we do trade Morrow, I don’t want to see expensive-Morrow as the return, hence the vehemence.
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
But the swinging strike gap isn't huge, comparing them as starters, and it would seem
to me that the gap in BB% far outweighs it. Morrow as a starter is around what, 10.5% SwStr, trending down? Jackson was at 9.8%, trending up? I’d do that for basically halving Morrow’s walk rate. I can understand thinking that the swap isn’t worth it, but Jackson looks like the better pitcher, at least for now.
Good point about “expensive-Morrow” however….
marc w - November 20, 2009
Jeff stated he's "(maybe) a #3"
I stated he’s a #3/#4. That sounds like we evaluate his current level exactly the same.
I stated his max potential to be a #2.
Jeff stated he’s a #3/#4 pretty much with “upside”. So what would that upside be? If Jeff thinks he’s currently a #3/#4, what would the upside bring him to?
Anyway, you disagreed with my assertion that he’s a #3 or #4. How is that any different than Jeff calling him a “#3 (maybe)”?
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
I don't think you understand what 'safe bet' means
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
What do you consider a safe bet? I consider a safe bet about a 75% chance or so
of being a #3 or #4 starter. That doesn’t seem outrageous.
Rudy4three - November 20, 2009
Edwin Jackson has had half a season of being better than a replacement pitcher in three years
Graham MacAree - November 20, 2009
Jakubaustrich is gone :(
Corco - November 20, 2009
WHAT NOOOOOOOOO
I have a cousin that looks exactly like him. Goddammit it made for the best jokes.
Kermit. - November 20, 2009
Stupid Pirates
first Justin Thomas and now Jakubauskas
LEAVE OUR MEDIOCRE PITCHERS ALONE
Corco - November 20, 2009
My goal was for our defense to give them shiny ERA's and trade them off for upgrades.
Overly simplistic but I’m a big fan of the KISS principle.
Kermit. - November 20, 2009
I'm 100% with you on that
I’m surprised Jaku was DFA’d though- I’m curious to see the complete list of DFAs and contract purchases since I thought we had plenty of space
Corco - November 20, 2009
Wait, the Pirates? Is having a suspicious feeling about that reasonable?
They did pick up a bunch of money on Wilson, but then the M’s don’t have any influence on who he signs with, right?
Kermit. - November 20, 2009
He was claimed off waivers, so the Nats and Orioles would have had to pass on him (it still goes in that order, right?)
Corco - November 20, 2009
Worst to first for last year, as far as I know.
This might not be correct, I’m unclear about some of the off season rules, and the labels some of these guys carry.
Kermit. - November 20, 2009
Yeah I wasn't sure if it was straight worst to first or if it alternated by league
Corco - November 20, 2009
Oh, by league. I hadn't considered that, I should look up some of these rules.
Kermit. - November 20, 2009
It might be straight worst to first
I remember they changed something to that but I can’t remember what it was
Corco - November 20, 2009
This is more than likely LLLJ, and my apologies.
Kermit. - November 20, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.