For most of the year, it's been hard not to notice the success Brandon Morrow's been having with Toronto, and certainly yesterday it was impossible to ignore what Morrow did against the Rays. Over nine innings and 137 pitches, Morrow turned in arguably the most dominant pitching performance of the summer, striking out more hitters through his first six frames than Carlos Silva whiffed all last season. It's August 9th and Brandon Morrow has the highest strikeout rate in baseball, and I think Mariner fans respond to this development with one of three attitudes:
While Brandon Morrow's development is locally received in very different ways, however, without fail it causes everyone to reflect on the trade that sent him away in the first place. No matter what you think about Brandon Morrow's emergence as a capable starting pitcher, you, the Mariners fan, have, over the past 24 hours, given some thought as to what life would be like had we never dealt with the Jays.
Doing that, it's easy to be upset. I mean, Morrow leads all starting pitchers in strikeout rate. That's spectacular. Meanwhile, we've been subjected to the Brandon League Variety Hour, where by 'variety' I mean in terms of results since God knows there hasn't been any variety in his pitching style. Morrow's been great, League's been frustrating, and while everyone forgets that the M's also landed a decent prospect in Johermyn Chavez, he's no future superstar, and he definitely isn't good enough to swing the pendulum back towards the middle. Looking back, the M's got burned.
With that said, as much as some M's fans and many fans of other teams delight in ripping the team for the deal, it's important - and perhaps most important in circumstances such as these - to recall the context in which the trade was made. Remember first that Brandon League was exceptionally good in 2009. Remember second that the M's were preparing to make a run this season. Remember third that Brandon Morrow had shown little, if any, development. Remember fourth that Morrow struggled with arm soreness after starting. Remember fifth that Morrow had managed 71 strikeouts and and 49 walks over 15 starts with Seattle. And remember sixth that Morrow had demonstrated a certain lack of mental toughness.
This isn't to show that it was a great trade gone wrong, but rather to show that it was justifiable at the time. A number of smart people defended it. A number of smart people made it. It made some degree of sense. Sometimes people disagree with the notion that you can only judge a trade based on what you know at the time, since in theory front offices should have some inside information to which we're not privy, but evaluating based on what we know at the time is absolutely a more sensible approach than evaluating strictly in hindsight. We can't say the Mariners traded an ace for a mediocre reliever, because they didn't, and to suggest as much is dishonest.
Still, while blasting the M's based on how things have worked out is unfair, I do think it's worth viewing this trade as an opportunity to learn a lesson. And that lesson, to me, is this: talent always deserves chances.
For as long as he was here, Brandon Morrow's talent was obvious. Anybody who watched him pitch could see it. The big key was that he worked off of an excellent fastball. If you can miss bats with your fastball, then you're well on your way to being an effective big league starter. Almost everybody can miss bats with their offspeed stuff. If you can miss bats with the soft stuff you throw 40% of the time, you've got a chance to be good. If you can miss bats with the hard stuff you throw 60% of the time, you've got a chance to be great. Brandon Morrow has had a chance to be great from the day he was drafted.
Obviously, he was frustrating. Even when you separate him from his organizational mismanagement, he was frustrating. Between his indecisiveness, his health problems, and his lack of visible progress, he was forever the source of some discontent. However, you can work to make a guy less frustrating. You can't work to make a guy throw a high-90s fastball and a sharp, biting curve. Morrow, for all of his faults, was gifted. He was one of the most gifted raw talents this organization has ever had. And when you sit down and really think about it, a guy with that much natural ability should be given every opportunity to put things together.
We were kind of burned on this to a lesser degree with Matt Thornton, who shook off 89.2 lousy innings with the Mariners before turning into one of the better setup men in the world. That's what happens sometimes with a lefty who can throw 98. We all grew frustrated with Thornton, and justifiably so, but we were also perhaps a little hasty in bidding him farewell. We obviously got burned on Morrow. I don't know who could be next, but Greg Halman has the right blend of extraordinary talent and annoying results, so he's got a chance.
Talent is key. Talent should be given a long leash, and only with care should you exchange high-level talent for a more reliable lower ceiling. The best teams in baseball are built around stars. Stars are hard to find, and hard to afford. Development of stars, then, becomes critical for most, and star players develop from players with star potential. When you have a player with star potential, you should be wary of seeing him go. When you have a player with star potential, you should try like hell to help him along.
Morrow's success has generated the same response from some circles as we saw from Thornton. "Sure, he's doing well there, but he never would've done that well here." Maybe. Maybe not. This could be absolutely correct. But how many chances were they given? Was Morrow given enough of a chance? Was Thornton given enough of a chance? I do understand that Thornton was exchanged for Joe Borchard, an outfielder with a ton of ability of his own, but the M's were never going to give him a real opportunity, which is why he got six at bats in a month before getting dumped. Borchard didn't get a chance. And, because they traded him instead of keeping him on the roster over Jake Woods or Jeff Harris, you could argue that Thornton didn't get enough of a chance, either. Even after all of his walks and all of his meltdowns.
I'm not intending this as a criticism of the Mariners' maneuver, nor do I mean to convey the idea that high-level talent should be untouchable and unmovable. It's easy to fall into the trap of evaluating talented players by their potential peak, and that can lead to all kinds of real-life problems. I just think it's worth remembering why we found guys like Thornton and Morrow so frustrating in the first place. They were frustrating because they weren't getting nearly enough out of their obvious, striking ability. They were frustrating because they had a chance to be stars, and hadn't yet evolved into stars. That made us upset, because there are few things quite as disappointing as squandered talent. At the same time, though, there are few things quite as satisfying as talent that's realized, and more often than not, I feel like that's a progression that should be given every opportunity to take place.
4 recs | 48 comments
I guess the key is deciding between Brandon Morrow-talent
and Jesus Colome-talent
Matthew - August 9, 2010
What made the Morrow trade frustrating
To me, at least, was the fact that he only made those 15 starts as a Mariner. As you wrote, the talent was clearly there. To trade a guy away with that kind of talent, it seems like the team would want to be pretty damn sure that he was never going to realize that talent.
Despite what you’ve said, I have no idea how the team could have reached that kind of conclusion. Yes, this was supposed to be a year that we contended, and it’s easy to forget that with how things have gone, but it still strikes me as a bit ridiculous that we gave up that much talent, considering that even optimistic projections had the playoffs as a ~25% chance.
Oh well, at least we’ve got Pineda.
Sportszilla - August 9, 2010
A large part of what placated me about trading Morrow
were the behind the scenes reports on Morrow’s health.
I never doubted his ability but I did — and still do to an extent — his ability to start long term. And when viewed as Brandon Morrow the RP vs Brandon League the RP, League was better now. Clearly it hasn’t worked out that way (yet)
Matthew - August 9, 2010
Yeah I remember discussing it when the trade went down
and we basically concluded the only way this trade really made sense was if you thought Morrow’s health was going to keep him from pitching.
Edgar for Pres - August 9, 2010
you're absolutely right
Jack doesnt take long to evaluate talent, but it seemed in 08 and 09 as soon as Brandon Morrow started clicking and throwing good starts the season was over, then he was traded before 2010. So often it was cited that Morrow had virtually no minor league record to back his talent, but then he absolutely crushed in tacoma after his demotion last summer. It hurt that we gave up on Morrow then, and boy does it sting now. Jack thought Snell was more likely to be a productive major league starter, and that more than any win loss record this season concerns me, because expert or not I dont feel that was very hard to call.
E2ESQUARE - August 9, 2010
You have no idea if Jack Z compared Ian Snell to Brandon Morrow.
Matthew - August 9, 2010
yes actually we do
When Jack traded Brandon the reason he gave was that Brandon would be competing for a rotation spot with 3 other pitchers, so clearly he wasnt sold on the idea of Morrow beating out Vargas, Fister or Snell in the rotation. Furthermore, we traded Morrow for League, showing that Jack valued Brandon not as a starter, but as a reliever, further solidifying the position that there was generally no faith in Morrow as a starter when he was traded.
E2ESQUARE - August 9, 2010
"clearly" you have no idea what Z was thinking
pdb - August 9, 2010
I swear that picture makes it look like Morrow is projectile vomiting
Zonis - August 9, 2010
haha, it does
Frederick0220 - August 9, 2010
Wish he were here, but...
I wish him the very best, and would still love to see him flourish. Just because he was horribly (HORRIBLY!!!) mismanaged here doesn’t mean he should be left to rot away and never reach his potential. It’s just to bad he wasn’t properly managed here. (A surprise given how good Z usually is with prospects…)
Hiro55cool - August 9, 2010
My argument
Is that Morrow wouldn’t have had the kind of success here because of the lack of opportunity he would’ve gotten.
Given his development progress, Morrow needed to be a starter and he needed to be left alone. Toronto provided the perfect environment for realizing his potential if he is ever able to reach it. They are strictly in a rebuilding year so the team’s expectations were pretty low to begin with.
This team, however, was expected to win. When the team started losing, the environment became more stressful. When the team was spiraling down south, more moves were made to control the damages. Not sure how that would’ve affected Morrow but anything other than instant improvement would’ve put Morrow’s spot in the rotation in jeopardy.
I’m really glad to see Morrow making progress. I really don’t regret this trade at all. In many ways, I find this the most interesting trade by the organization to date. The answers aren’t so clear cut. If this is forever classified as a bad trade so be it, but I just can’t associate it with trades like Soriano for HoRam.
ThundaPC - August 9, 2010
Maybe this team should stop expecting to win every time they project to be an 80 win team.
I agree though that the M’s did not want to deal with the bumps in the road that Morrow would have been expected to have. They thought they were going to be in a pennant race with three other mediocre clubs, and that they couldn’t afford to let Morrow struggle for a few months or a whole season while he transitions to the rotation. However, I have no idea why they felt Ian Snell was a safer bet to keep them in ballgames.
I will probably be ridiculed, but I would like this organization to stop thinking about winning divisions or making postseason until they have a true talent level of close to 90 wins. To give up on a young starter with electric stuff (albeit with command and durability concerns) because you feel you are going to possibly win a division with your true talent level 80 win team and therefore can’t have an “experiment” in your rotation is something I can live without.
Rudy4three - August 9, 2010
I'm in the 'both' category
Congratulations Brandon you arse.
Eyeball Kid - August 9, 2010
So the argument was that the trade made sense at the time ...
… but that really doesn’t fly. If we had had a competitive lineup constructed and were comfortable that we were going to be in a position to make a run, then I would grant you that it would make sense at the time. But, once we decided that we were not going to make a play for any of the legit middle of the order bats on the market, we were in a position where it would be nice if we could contend, but unlikely. That is what frustrates me about the trade. We made it before we had answered our lineup questions which is a baffling decision.
Gekko Mojo - August 9, 2010
Good, reasonable analysis pegged the Mariners as a competitive team
and additions can be made in-season, you know.
Jeff Sullivan - August 9, 2010
I would dispute that ...
… even Geoff Baker didn’t see this team as any better than third in the division when he did his preview. I can’t think of anyone who felt all that comfortable breaking in the season with Kotchman in the 3 hole, RJ behind the plate, Byrnes as a fourth OF and a DH platoon of Sweeny/Griffey. That is an incomplete lineup with very limited flexibility. We were not in the position of having the luxury of dealing a SP prospect with major league experience for a reliever at the time.
Gekko Mojo - August 9, 2010
Almost everybody thought this team was going to finish around 80-85 wins
Baker might have been one of the exceptions
Edgar for Pres - August 9, 2010
Morrow was traded in December, not March
Matthew - August 9, 2010
yes - that is my point.
Gekko Mojo - August 9, 2010
Bringing up Mike Sweeney, Eric Byrnes, etc is a funny way of making that point
Matthew - August 9, 2010
no its not ...
… it supports my notion that this team was too much of a work in progress at the time of the trade to justify trading a high potential SP for a set up man.
Gekko Mojo - August 9, 2010
You are completely ignoring the chronology of events
Jeff Sullivan - August 9, 2010
No I'm not, but I can see that I have not effectively made my point and there are more important things to discuss ... so I'll let it go.
Gekko Mojo - August 10, 2010
Well
If your point is that the team should’ve held off on this sort of trade until they knew they had a potent, competitive lineup, then that’s fair. They certainly had a number of questions at the time. The team was far from a shoo-in for the playoffs. However, I will maintain that they looked like a contender. Even with, say, Casey Kotchman playing every day. It wasn’t as ridiculous then as it sounds to say now.
Jeff Sullivan - August 10, 2010
Geoff Baker is not an analyst
Jeff Sullivan - August 9, 2010
IT WAS PURE STUPID
Someone had to just say it
Great Sergios Ghost - August 9, 2010
I didn't like the trade at the time,
but I’m not going to complain about this too much. Morrow is really the only guy he’s traded away that has amounted to a hill of beans, so I don’t think this means Zduriencik has issues evaluating a player.
Good for Morrow, time to move on.
tait644 - August 9, 2010
It seems like decision should be made by creating a small WAR vs. probability table
League has almost no chance at becoming even a 3 WAR player because he’s strictly a reliever. Morrow has a small but non-zero probability of being a 6 WAR player because he has a shot at being a great starter.
Make educated guesses what the probabilities are for each WAR outcome, multiply them by the corresponding WAR, and add ’em up. Whoever has the biggest number is the better player to make a bet on.
It’s hard to come up with accurate probabilities, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. Even a semi-educated guess is better than nothing.
I made the table in Excel and ran a few trials. It wasn’t even very close. You would have be extremely pessimistic about Morrow’s future to think this was a good trade.
rickpo - August 9, 2010
I think at the time the M's thought there was 90% chance Morrow couldn't start at all and would get hurt
I bet that makes your table spit out League as a smart answer.
Edgar for Pres - August 9, 2010
Even if Morrow ended up just a reliever, there wouldn't be much difference between him and League.
90% would be the “extremely pessimistic” part. And that would be a big questionable assumption to me.
rickpo - August 9, 2010
Yeah that's why i was very skeptical of the trade
but it seemed like the M’s org thought there was no way his arm could ever deal with the stresses of starting.
Edgar for Pres - August 9, 2010
That may be true, but even if that is the case and they were 90% certain Morrow couldn't start, then it appears they were wrong.
You have to think Morrow as a SP is a totally lost cause to trade him for League. He apparently is not a lost cause as a SP, which calls into question the FO’s evaluation of his talent. A good process (e.g. trading a busted SP for a reliable RP) does no good if it’s based on faulty premises (e.g. that Morrow is a busted SP). Their poor evaluation of Morrow is the issue here.
Note that this is not a result-based trade analysis done with hindsight. It’s a results-based analysis of their player evaluation, a place in which I think result-based analysis has some merit (how else are you to judge who is a good talent evaluator and who is not?).
Terminator X - August 9, 2010
I miss the diabetes jokes the most.
PDXTai - August 9, 2010
Worth noting:
Given what’s happened with League (and others) in terms of tweaking his delivery and the fastball mentality, thinking that Morrow takes the same path in Seattle that he has in Toronto is assumptive at best.
Matthew - August 9, 2010
then, I suppose, by that logic we should have all expected Chone Figgins to bust in Seattle.
Gekko Mojo - August 9, 2010
So changes in mechanics, coaching, the pitcher's game plans, and the pattern of his off-speed, breaking stuff, and fastball usage have no effect?
Even if you can’t predict them with any clear level of accuracy and make a projection like, say, ZiPS or CHONE, they’re quite real. Or if you’re arguing something else, be more clear about it.
Decatur - August 9, 2010
No
Jeff Sullivan - August 9, 2010
No
Matthew - August 9, 2010
So how does Z net out at this point?
Seems like we have a significant enough sample size of Jack Z deals — any chance someone who knows what they’re doing can look at them all and see if he’s above average as a GM? Obviously there are a couple deals that look like they’re good (Aumont for Smoak et al), but it seems like there are some that have not panned out (Morrow-League, Figgins, JaWilson extension). Compared to others, where’s he at? What’s Jack Z’s WAR?
bdunn02 - August 9, 2010
This can be discussed later.
This is a pretty bad time to assess Zduriencik’s performance objectively.
ThundaPC - August 9, 2010
Just want to say I really liked this post
This subject always devolves into a yelling match about who was stupid for what but I thought the post gave a clearly thought out view of the situation.
Edgar for Pres - August 9, 2010
SP vs. RP
That seems to be the main problem, not in hindsight, but at the time. I guess the M’s had decided Morrow couldn’t start. I don’t follow closely enough but it seemed there was flip-flopping on him relieving or starting. As someone above suggested, even as a reliever Morrow wouldn’t be that much less valuable than League, even assuming you had 2009 League, with just some progression from Morrow.
A friend of mine in Toronto says that Morrow got a lot of help from some tips from Shawn Marcum, for whatever that’s worth, which likely isn’t much.
I still like League, even with the homer-issue I think he has which advanced metrics and rational analysis apparently says he doesn’t have, but I am hidebound that way. The trade may have made some sense in the context of the M’s thinking with Lee for this year they had a chance to contend and wanted a good shot for a lockdown set-up guy rather than the Morrow crapshoot.
wobatus - August 9, 2010
Blue Jays and starters
They seem to do a decent job getting the most out of guys. Last year they had nothing it seemed, then Romero started coming around, Richmond actually was good, Mark Ryzwhathisname had a stretch, Marcum before he got hurt last year, now this year Romero a step forward, Cecil, Morrow.
BTW, I see that’s AA’s own Sam Page on that #6org twitter link. Sam’s good people for a whippersnapper.
wobatus - August 9, 2010
Toronto could also do something Seattle couldn't
Which was hit the Reset button on “How Things Get Done Around Here”. I always got the sense that we gave Morrow a lot of leash on how he wanted his career to shape up. Toronto has the leeway of telling him that he either becomes a starter or he becomes a wash-up, but that mandate just doesn’t carry the same weight coming from the Mariners org.
kow - August 9, 2010
I hated the trade from day one... But telling my friends I told you so hasn't felt as good as I thought it would.
Of course it’s still early. This trade could still work out well for us. All that maple syrup can’t be good for Morrow’s diabetes. When he loses his legs we’ll still have a relief pitcher, but what will Toronto have?
Mothy - August 9, 2010
Morrow I wish well
I hope Thornton and Silva tear their rotator cuffs.
Not really sure what the difference is, though.
Aly Edge - August 9, 2010
Keep an eye on Chavez
Just as Morrow seemed to make a big step forward as a major league pitcher, Johermyn Chavez appears to have done the same thing as a prospect. His numbers are strong across the board in High A this season, very strong: home, away, vs. lefties, vs. righties. K’s are a concern, but there is a lot of talent there and he may be arguably the top prospect right now in the Cal League.
Mr.Phelps - August 10, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.