Since news of Ackley's signing broke, a lot of people have raised the question of where he's going to play. An outfielder by choice, he's currently blocked in the organization by Saunders, Gutierrez, Ichiro, and Langerhans, leading some to wonder how the front office is going to shift things around to make room. After all, it doesn't do us any good to have a Major League-ready outfielder if we already have a bunch of them locked into their positions, right?
Don't worry about it.
Here's a table showing the four outfielders who got the most playing time for each team in 2007. Bolded are the ones who remain in the top four for playing time for the same team in 2009.
| ARI | Byrnes | Young | Quentin | Hairston |
| ATL | Diaz | Jones | Francouer | Harris |
| BAL | Payton | Patterson | Markakis | Gibbons |
| BOS | Ramirez | Crisp | Drew | Pena |
| CHC | Soriano | Jones | Floyd | Murton |
| CHW | Podsednik | Owens | Dye | Erstad |
| CIN | Dunn | Hamilton | Griffey | Hopper |
| CLE | Michaels | Sizemore | Nixon | Gutierrez |
| COL | Halladay | Taveras | Hawpe | Spilborghs |
| DET | Monroe | Granderson | Ordonez | Thames |
| FLA | Willingham | Amezaga | Hermida | Borchard |
| HOU | Lee | Pence | Scott | Burke |
| KCR | Brown | DeJesus | Teahen | Gathright |
| LAA | Anderson | Matthews | Guerrero | Willits |
| LAD | Gonzalez | Pierre | Ethier | Kemp |
| MIL | Jenkins | Hall | Hart | Mench |
| MIN | Kubel | Hunter | Cuddyer | Tyner |
| NYM | Alou | Beltran | Green | Milledge |
| NYY | Matsui | Cabrera | Abreu | Damon |
| OAK | Stewart | Swisher | Buck | Cust |
| PHI | Burrell | Rowand | Victorino | Werth |
| PIT | Bay | Duffy | Nady | McLouth |
| SDP | Sledge | Cameron | Giles | Cruz |
| SEA | Ibanez | Ichiro | Guillen | Bloomquist |
| SFG | Bonds! | Roberts | Winn | Lewis |
| STL | Duncan | Edmonds | Encarnacion | Taguchi |
| TBD | Crawford | Upton | Young | Gomes |
| TEX | Catalanotto | Lofton | Cruz | Byrd |
| TOR | Lind | Wells | Rios | Johnson |
| WSN | Church | Logan | Kearns | Langerhans |
44 of 120 players are bolded, or 36.7%. And of those, a few guys (like Francouer and Duncan) are now playing elsewhere.
Obviously this table doesn't account for service time or contract status. Our outfield is locked up for a while, whereas a bunch of guys listed above like Adam Dunn and Barry Bonds either became free agents or were unfortunately forced into involuntary retirement. So that skews things. But the general point remains the same: things can change, and they can change in a hurry.
Look at some of those names. Do you think the Reds thought they'd trade Josh Hamilton? Do you think the Rays thought they would trade Delmon Young? Do you think the Braves thought Jeff Francoeur would fall of a cliff? Do you think the Diamondbacks thought Chris Young would come apart? And so on and so forth. Some guys get dealt. Some guys get worse. Some guys (Guerrero, Matsui) change positions. Even when you think you're all set for a long time, things can get turned around almost overnight. Dave likes to mention how a few years ago the Rays' organization was crawling with a surplus of ML-caliber outfield talent, and they were able to figure things out.
Anything can happen between now and when we expect Ackley to be ready for the Major Leagues. Saunders could bust. Gutierrez could get traded for help somewhere else. Ichiro could hit his decline and go back to Japan. Any of them could get hurt. Perhaps most importantly, Ackley could fail to develop as projected. He could take longer than we think, or he could flame out completely. Just because he's a good bet doesn't make him a guarantee. And there's always the chance that he ends up at second base.
Here's one way to think of the overall bust potential: if you give each of the four players a 90% chance of being able to produce in 2011, you've still dealing with one-in-three odds that at least one of them comes up short. So you've got that, and you've got the possibility of a trade, and the possibility of anything else that I may be forgetting.
By signing Dustin Ackley, the Mariners have put themselves in position to have more quality outfielders than they can play. But though that seems like it could force the front office's hand to make a move, it really doesn't, because they understand that they'll deal with this issue if they get there. There's no telling what could happen in the time leading up to Ackley's expected arrival. Between injuries, trades, and changes in performance, the future is but a vague silhouette. If something happens with one of the players, room will be made. And if they all remain with the organization and play at a high level, well, having too much talent in one area may be quite literally the best problem a GM could imagine.
3 recs | 60 comments
Your overall point is of course solid, and I think the first priority should be to develop him as a CFer.
With that being said, if he A) appears to be pretty far along in his defensive development early on or B) does not appear to be suited for CF after a reasonable amount of time at the position, I’d like them to try him at 2B. Positional flexibility is a really awesome thing to have, and if he does end up blocked out of the OF but can come up and play 2B, well that’s just pretty darn neat. Or if he’s going to be stuck in a COF position but can play 2B, he’s a lot more valuable.
In reality though, I think he’s most likely to show the ability to play CF but need a year in the minors to get to MLB quality, and in that year a spot will open up for him.
Aaron Campeau - August 18, 2009
I just can't get Skip Schumaker out of my head.
Of course, Ackley’s in a much better position for an OF to 2B move, being younger, in the minors, a better athlete, and experienced at 1B. So I’m pretty torn about it.
Decatur - August 18, 2009
Schumaker has a secondbaseman's body
The Cardinals just handled his conversion badly by waiting too long. Hes probably between like a -10 and a -5 going forward.
Poochie - August 18, 2009
If our OF were still together he could always play the IF, and move back if neccesary
Poochie - August 18, 2009
Beat me to it.
If we re-sign Branyan, we could ideally have seven guys (Saunders, Gutz, Ichiro, Ackley, Langerhans, Branyan, and Poythress) we’d love to plug into the five LF-CF-RF-1B-DH slots at some point in 2011. But it’s pretty likely that one or more will have significant setbacks (injury, especially, but also development), and Langerhans is a good fourth outfielder type too, so it’s not really much of a log-jam at all, even if everyone listed develops almost perfectly.
Decatur - August 18, 2009
These things do tend work themselves out.
I say plan on him being a CF just on the value aspect alone. He still has a long way to go before he forces anyone’s hand.
Sec 108 - August 18, 2009
Don't CF and 2B have the same positional adjustment?
Aaron Campeau - August 18, 2009
Yes, they do. Maybe 108 meant that he'll likely be a better defender at CF than at 2B, given his lack of experience at second.
Decatur - August 18, 2009
It is actually that I think CF is more important than 2B in Safeco.
Across the baseball spectrum they may be almost the same, but I do not think that is true for us.
Sec 108 - August 18, 2009
True, but it is harder to find bats at second
Poochie - August 18, 2009
I agreed with you until 10 seconds ago when I checked the wOBA leaderboards by position.
I will have to look at it more in-depth, but on first glance there are more above-league-average bats at 2B than in CF and more elite offensive players as well.
Aaron Campeau - August 18, 2009
I agree it's pretty close, but glancing at position by position unadjusted OPS over the least decade
Second and center tend to have the same averages and OBP numbers, but center has the edge in slugging average.
Ultimately it I think its a question of where his defense plays the best, but all things being equal I bet he’d be more valuable at second.
Poochie - August 18, 2009
Agreed that his abilities defensively will be what is most important.
But he if he can +5 or better in CF I think that is where I hope he lands.
Sec 108 - August 18, 2009
If he were to be really really good at second I would hope he'd end up there
Poochie - August 18, 2009
In all reality I guess I just hope he is a postive on offense and defense
no matter where we put him.
Sec 108 - August 18, 2009
The one thing is
that his arm may not play anywhere but LF, given the surgery; I would think a rag arm would matter a lot less at 2B.
The Ancient Mariner - August 18, 2009
Wasn't Ackley a pitcher in HS?
I believe his arm strength before the injury was fine.
Matthew - August 18, 2009
No, actually, they don't
Go argue with Dave about that — he laid it all out over at USSM a while back.
The Ancient Mariner - August 18, 2009
A link would be appreciated, if you can find it.
Decatur - August 18, 2009
I kind of remember Tango writing something about how there were close.
I think his paper upped the defensive value of second base. Can’t find if offhand, I’ll stew on it a bit and come up with a better search
Kermit. - August 18, 2009
...because now I'm curious if I'm remembering this even remotely correct
Kermit. - August 18, 2009
Here you go
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/explaining-win-values-part-three
Jeff Sullivan - August 18, 2009
I feel like if he got acclimated to 2B, a transition to the outfield would be easier then vice-versa.
JamMasterJesus - August 18, 2009
I'm more worried about 3B going forward.
Would be nice to have a Ryan Zimmerman or David Wright anchored over there. We have plenty of other options to plug in Ackley (1B, DH, 2B).
Wilder. - August 18, 2009
I'm confident Alex Gordon will be a Mariner by 2011.
Decatur - August 18, 2009
In exchange for Carlos Silva, of course!
Wilder. - August 18, 2009
Yes please!
Teej - August 18, 2009
Of course we will also aquire Reid Brignac for David Aardsma, Greg Halman, and Adam Moore, whom we could happily part with because of the signing of Joe Mauer.
Decatur - August 18, 2009
Gregg Zaun will play forever. No need for your meaningless prospects.
R.J. Anderson - August 18, 2009
We should trade Ackley for Strasburg
Matthew - August 18, 2009
I don't think the rules allow that, and Strasburg is a greater risk.
Poochie - August 18, 2009
They'll allow it a year from now.
The Ancient Mariner - August 18, 2009
Okay, for curiosity:
Let’s say 2011 comes around and all 4 (5?) players are performing excellently. From your perspective, who is best to trade – the veteran (Ichiro), the already risen star (Gutz), the rising star (Saunders) or the unproven MVP prospect? Which is more common, which is better, and which would be most likely to happen?
CapSea - August 18, 2009
Probably Gutierrez
But if all three were kicking ass in 2010, you might have him work out at second or first for 2011 depending on where your needs are.
Poochie - August 18, 2009
Kind of depends on what the landscape looks like in 2011
Jeff Sullivan - August 18, 2009
Um, I have no idea?
Seriously, this has too many factors to even possibly speculate about: is our trade partner going “we need a veteran for a stretch drive”? Are we? Is someone dumping salary and retrenching for next year or further down the pike? Are we dumping salary? Is this an offseason “we’re adjusting the roster” trade where you have plenty of time to put things back together via other trades and the FA market? What’s the trade partner offering? How are the players projecting who are involved in the trade?
Without answers to those questions, “who do you trade” is pretty meaningless as a question, because you have too many variables that are completely unknown.
eponymous_coward - August 18, 2009
Okay Grumple Stiltskin
CapSea - August 18, 2009
From a strictly detached point of view, almost certainly Ichiro
He’s superhuman and all that, but I have a hard time seeing him last forever. Even if he’s the best of the group in 2011, he’s by far the most expensive and most likely to decline rather than improve going forward.
As always, it depends what you’re getting in return.
But honestly, I have a hard time thinking of Ichiro in another uniform.
philosofool - August 19, 2009
Nice chart.
No team kept all four outfielders, and only one team kept three (and one of those was subsequently lost on waivers).
Llewdor - August 18, 2009
Except how the Dodgers kept three as well
seattlebruin - August 18, 2009
I know a great OF defense is nice in Safeco
But having a CF in LF and RF is a little wasteful. Its like fielding a SS at 3B, 2B and 1B. I’d rather have a Prince Fielder in AAA than another CF. Having depth is nice but we have pretty obvious holes all over the place. I can’t fault the team for taking another CF because he was the best all around player but I think a trade is somehow going to need to be worked out to clear up some room. If any of these OF we have hit well enough to DH regularly then it wouldn’t be a big deal to have 4 MLB-quality OF who could be rotated to get playing time but these guys have all their value wrapped up in playing defense.
I guess my point is that it is a problem that we don’t have enough spots to play all these talented players. I’m assuming it’ll work it self out pretty easily although I think a trade is more likely than the other routes it can end.
Edgar for Pres - August 18, 2009
No, its not
The diminishing returns of having a premium defender at a non-premium defensive position ends up “wasting” one or two runs per year.
davidcameron - August 18, 2009
I've heard this argument before and it still amazes me
In 2007 Ichiro made 424 put outs as a CF. In 2005 (his highest non-CF putout season) he had 381 putouts. I’m not saying that is a good measure of value but I think it does correlate to how often the ball is coming your way.
If we average Ichiro’s work over all his career, he has averaged around 333 put outs per year as a RF and 424 as a CF. Granted that this is a pretty limited sample to work with in CF. Franklin Guiterrez has averaged around the same putout/IP as Ichiro did though so that kinda leads me to believe that this is reasonable.
I have a hard time believing that that putting a great defender at CF has roughly the same value as a great defensive CF who plays RF. The ball is just coming to him 20% less of the time. I guess when you think about it though, if he is a +10 CF he only loses +2 runs due to shifting to a different position which is exactly what you said.
I guess in of itself this isn’t mind blowing but it does imply that there really is no such thing as a premium defensive position and moving from one position to another just doesn’t hurt a player’s defensive value that much (replacement value does though).
Edgar for Pres - August 18, 2009
There is nothing wasteful about having an amazing defensive outfielder in LF or RF
Especially not if they bring the same value as the average LF/RF or better. They put slower people there because there is less ground that needs to be covered, but that does not mean that they can’t cover greater ground than they needed to and still bring incredible value to the team.
CapSea - August 18, 2009
“But having a CF in LF and RF is a little wasteful”
The 2001 Mariners don’t agree with you.
rtang - August 18, 2009
The 2009 Mariners like it too.
Jed MC - August 18, 2009
If Ackley stays an OF, when he's ready why would we need to keep around Langerhans?
He is? Trade Langerhans in the 2010 offseason, assuming Ackley’s ready by next September.
Then, Ackley is the 4th OF. Ackley gets playing time by platooning with Saunders (unless he blossoms, Gutierrez-like, in 2010) and with Ichiro (who presumably is going to be DHing / getting more regular days off starting in a couple years).
Ackley in a platoon, after a fast-track to the majors, isn’t bad. I’m also not convinced Saunders is going to pan out, so LF is waiting for Ackley whenever he’s ready, in that case.
Spoomeister - August 18, 2009
Why would you platoon a lefty with a lefty?
Why would you want to start the service clock on a top draft pick by platooning him?
Graham MacAree - August 18, 2009
Ackley and Saunders can't platoon.
And Ackley and Saunders are not 4th outfielder material (Langerhans is). They are young enough where they should be starting daily, either at Triple-A or the majors.
Ackley will likely be a September call-up in 2010 and starting in 2011. By then we will have a better picture how the OF pieces together. As for now, we shouldn’t worry how things will turn out, which is the point of Jeff’s post.
Wilder. - August 18, 2009
In 95 PA and 213 innings with the Mariners, Langerhans has been worth 0.7 WAR.
He is a quality regular MLB OFer. The league may view him as a 4th OFer, but he’s better than that on true talent.
Aaron Campeau - August 18, 2009
I agree with you, but his playing time is by far the easiest to justify reducing
Jeff Sullivan - August 18, 2009
I know but I feel bad for him
Aaron Campeau - August 18, 2009
Although he's probably thrilled to be on an MLB roster
Aaron Campeau - August 18, 2009
Holy shit we finally have a bit of depth in the outfield
Even more if Yuni had been shipped to the hinterlands a week earlier. This is an amazing feat in the history of the Mariners.
Kermit. - August 18, 2009
Oops, Endy Chavez' contract was up.
Kermit. - August 18, 2009
Basically what Jeff said.
I didn’t mean to sound like Langerhans isn’t MLB material, it’s just that his upside is limited at his age and is best suited to be the 4th OFer with Mariners’ depth chart.
I love me some Langerhans!
Wilder. - August 18, 2009
Color me baffled by the ZOMG TOO MANY OFers WTF BBQ comments, too.
This isn’t like signing a bunch of broken down MLB DH/1B types, and replacement level AAAA DH/1B types and thus having to sort through a bunch of kinda OK to BAD options (and, if you’re a crappy GM like Bill Bavasi, or have a yen for “veteran leadership” in your clubhouse, keeping/playing the wrong guys), that might also block a guy who blossoms unexpectedly. We’re not talking about having to choose between Mike Sweeney, Greg Dobbs, Mike Morse, and so on. We’re talking about potentially having more 1.5-4+ WAR players than everyday lineup spots (and that’s assuming the creek don’t rise, etc.), “worst” case scenario- guys who deserve jobs as MLB players. The only time this ends up being a problem is when the organization is completely incompetent at player development, roster management and handling MLB veterans with egos, which is not how I’d describe the Mariners under GMZ. Usually, it means things like pennants and rings in your future.
This will get figured out, and speculating on the shape of the 2011 roster in August 2009 is just going to be hopelessly futile given how much we don’t know about the future. Enjoy the fact that Dustin Ackley’s going to be a Mariner for a while instead, and we’ve got an organization that looks like it will have a clue what to do with a surplus of riches, if one shows up.
eponymous_coward - August 18, 2009
.
Sums it up pretty well, I think.
Eyeball Kid - August 18, 2009
Worst comes to worse we can always trade him and 4 prospects for Erick Bedard
Oh wait… nevermind
Whoopetydoo - August 18, 2009
We don't have a Chris Tillman to throw away, so it's doubtful.
russak - August 19, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.