PDA

View Full Version : Bedard available?



GoReds
06-09-2008, 01:31 PM
mlbtraderumors is suggesting that the M's may put Bedard on the block. Keep in mind that this is all very speculative, at this point.

There were suggestions that the Reds offered a package including Homer, Votto and two prospects for Bedard when they were trying to work out a trade with the O's. Considering that Bedard has not gotten off to a hot start, has a big contract and Votto is in the mix for the ROY, what would it take to land Bedard now?

kaldaniels
06-09-2008, 01:36 PM
mlbtraderumors is suggesting that the M's may put Bedard on the block. Keep in mind that this is all very speculative, at this point.

There were suggestions that the Reds offered a package including Homer, Votto and two prospects for Bedard when they were trying to work out a trade with the O's. Considering that Bedard has not gotten off to a hot start, has a big contract and Votto is in the mix for the ROY, what would it take to land Bedard now?

I still think his value will be high. If the M's open the bidding come now or July there are a few teams that would ante up. A Homer (lower stock)/Votto (higher stock) still would be needed I think to get the job done.

A quick look at Bedard's game log shows his ho-hum stat line has been caused by a few rotten starts. I doubt his value his dropped that much.

Matt700wlw
06-09-2008, 01:45 PM
The Reds aren't exactly in the race...and if they keep playing this bad on the road, they never will be.

jojo
06-09-2008, 01:47 PM
So far, we haven't read any actual rumors suggesting the Mariners will shop Erik Bedard.

Maybe their first caveat should speak volumes.

kaldaniels
06-09-2008, 01:50 PM
Maybe their first caveat should speak volumes.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080607-baseball-whispers-rogers,1,2510127.story

Don't know how good the source is but this is where I saw it. I was thinking the same thing the writer was...after giving up Jones, the M's will want to drive a hard bargain.

RedsManRick
06-09-2008, 01:50 PM
Heh, Jojo. As with most rumor based sites, they walk a very fine line maintaining credibility (noise:news). I've pestered the founder before with the compliant that simple speculation is not the same thing as a well-sourced rumor. Not surprisingly, he dismissed my suggestion that he should focus on reporting rumors rather than starting them -- or claiming innocence when citing somebody else's unfounded speculation.

flyer85
06-09-2008, 01:59 PM
funny stuff on the Mariners from Rotoworld


Mariners fired hitting coach Jeff Pentland.
The Mariners have the game's worst record despite a top-10 payroll, and it's obviously Pentland's fault. He'll know better next time not to overpay for Richie Sexson, Carlos Silva, Miguel Batista and Jarrod Washburn. Also, he never should have traded for Jose Vidro and put together a ridiculous bench that included Miguel Cairo and Willie Bloomquist. And that's glossing over his biggest mistake of all: he saw two lesbians kissing at Safeco Field and did absolutely nothing to stop them. Lee Elia, his replacement, is very capable of putting the fans in their place when he needs to.

Degenerate39
06-09-2008, 02:05 PM
Cueto, Bruce, and Homer for him!

Honestly I wouldn't trade a whole lot for him right now. That trade probably killed the Mariners future for a few years and I don't want the same thing to happen to the Reds.

jojo
06-09-2008, 02:15 PM
Heh, Jojo. As with most rumor based sites, they walk a very fine line maintaining credibility (noise:news). I've pestered the founder before with the compliant that simple speculation is not the same thing as a well-sourced rumor. Not surprisingly, he dismissed my suggestion that he should focus on reporting rumors rather than starting them -- or claiming innocence when citing somebody else's unfounded speculation.

Ya. It's a shame because there are so many quality baseball blogs that have raised the bar (and frankly surpassed the average beat writer). Then to have throngs of people give an ear to such an undeserving site that panders to the lowest common denominator without a shred of concern for accuracy or truth, it just lowers the quality of baseball conversation IMHO.

jojo
06-09-2008, 02:18 PM
funny stuff on the Mariners from Rotoworld

Ya. It's tough to imagine Bavasi even having enough rope left to even be able to make a personnel move that would actually be significant.

Will M
06-09-2008, 02:20 PM
IMO - i don't think the reds are close to being a playoff team ( or close ) year after year. they may be close to a team that could win 85 games but whats the point in that? i have no interest in bedard. i think the reds should be sellers at the deadline ( if the offers are there ).
we do have some pitchers in AAA but other than that AA/AAA looks weak.
all the reds best prospects are in A/A+ which means they are years away.
even with the infusion of votto, bruce, cueto this year the reds still aren't getting it done. guys like arroyo, dunn ( controversial ), weathers, affeldt, freel, etc aren't likely to be productive when the reds really have the talent coming from the minors.

REDREAD
06-09-2008, 03:30 PM
I'd rather the Reds focus on something else. The starting pitching is ok now. Not playoff level, but good enough. The Reds need to upgrade position players (or replace ones about to depart) more desperately than they need to get another starting pitcher.

Joseph
06-09-2008, 03:40 PM
Bedard only went 5 in his last outing, and hasn't exactly lit it up regularly. He's killing my fantasy team, so I can attest lol.

Anyway, I wouldn't go after him for a package anywhere near what the M's gave up.

dougdirt
06-09-2008, 03:55 PM
Maybe their first caveat should speak volumes.

This isn't really in response to your post, but your description of Mlbtraderumors.... but they do a pretty good job at exactly what you label them as.

Benihana
06-09-2008, 03:57 PM
Bedard for Griffey :p:

Seriously though, with Alonso in the fold, would you consider trading Griffey, Votto and Maloney for Bedard and Sexson- provided the M's would pay Sexson's salary for next season? Sexson's contract makes him an albatross, but at least he is right-handed. He could be an interesting stopgap until Alonso is ready (he's signed through 2009). If Seattle was willing to swallow the contract, I would consider this, of course provided Dunn would agree to an extension.

jojo
06-09-2008, 04:18 PM
Bedard for Griffey :p:

Sexson for Griffey might actually make some semblance of sense for both teams.

Benihana
06-09-2008, 05:01 PM
Sexson for Griffey might actually make some semblance of sense for both teams.

Not unless the M's include a whole lot of cash.

Sabo Fan
06-09-2008, 08:25 PM
Bedard being dealt at this point reminds me of Bartolo Colon going from Cleveland to Montreal a few years back and then being shipped out of Montreal later in the year (to the ChiSox? I can't remember.) for what seemed like pennies on the dollar. Can't recall the players that Montreal got back for Colon but I remember thinking that what they got back paled in comparison to the Phillips/Sizemore/Lee package they gave up.

I wonder if there is a possiblility of a similar scenario with Bedard. The fact that Bavasi can't GM his way out of a wet paper bag makes it significantly more likely. If Bedard were in fact on the block then I'd think that a package with Bailey, Maloney, perhaps Valaika and a high-upside/raw player like Juan Francisco might be intriguing. Worth a phone call in about a few weeks at least.

kaldaniels
06-09-2008, 08:34 PM
Bedard being dealt at this point reminds me of Bartolo Colon going from Cleveland to Montreal a few years back and then being shipped out of Montreal later in the year (to the ChiSox? I can't remember.) for what seemed like pennies on the dollar. Can't recall the players that Montreal got back for Colon but I remember thinking that what they got back paled in comparison to the Phillips/Sizemore/Lee package they gave up.

I wonder if there is a possiblility of a similar scenario with Bedard. The fact that Bavasi can't GM his way out of a wet paper bag makes it significantly more likely. If Bedard were in fact on the block then I'd think that a package with Bailey, Maloney, perhaps Valaika and a high-upside/raw player like Juan Francisco might be intriguing. Worth a phone call in about a few weeks at least.

Are you assuming the Reds can ink Bedard long term?

jojo
06-09-2008, 08:57 PM
Not unless the M's include a whole lot of cash.

Why? Because the Reds are so greedy that dumping Jr's salary wouldn't be enough?

Both teams would be trading something relatively useless to them for something they could moderately use while the balance of moola pretty much evens out.

jojo
06-09-2008, 09:00 PM
Bedard being dealt at this point reminds me of Bartolo Colon going from Cleveland to Montreal a few years back and then being shipped out of Montreal later in the year (to the ChiSox? I can't remember.) for what seemed like pennies on the dollar. Can't recall the players that Montreal got back for Colon but I remember thinking that what they got back paled in comparison to the Phillips/Sizemore/Lee package they gave up.

I wonder if there is a possiblility of a similar scenario with Bedard. The fact that Bavasi can't GM his way out of a wet paper bag makes it significantly more likely. If Bedard were in fact on the block then I'd think that a package with Bailey, Maloney, perhaps Valaika and a high-upside/raw player like Juan Francisco might be intriguing. Worth a phone call in about a few weeks at least.

Bavasi's phone has probably been disconnected.

Sabo Fan
06-09-2008, 10:34 PM
Bavasi's phone has probably been disconnected.

Probably a good idea that they save him from himself.

Falls City Beer
06-09-2008, 10:36 PM
Why? Because the Reds are so greedy that dumping Jr's salary wouldn't be enough?

Both teams would be trading something relatively useless to them for something they could moderately use while the balance of moola pretty much evens out.

If all things are equal talent-wise and money-wise, why make that trade at all?

jojo
06-10-2008, 08:06 AM
If all things are equal talent-wise and money-wise, why make that trade at all?

First, that's part of the compelling reason the trade could work....

The Reds could use some right-handed pop from the bench and Sexson could play some first for them occasionally.

Jr could well, be left handed for the Ms. The Ms aren't going anywhere so sticking Jr in right would let them send Wlad back down to Tacoma and basically give them an extra year of control in case he does turn into a valuable player.

Like I said, it wouldn't be a block buster. Each team would be trading something expensive that they don't need for something they could at least find kinda useful.

mth123
06-10-2008, 08:39 AM
The Reds could use some right-handed pop from the bench and Sexson could play some first for them occasionally.

Jr could well, be left handed for the Ms. The Ms aren't going anywhere so sticking Jr in right would let them send Wlad back down to Tacoma and basically give them an extra year of control in case he does turn into a valuable player.

Like I said, it wouldn't be a block buster. Each team would be trading something expensive that they don't need for something they could at least find kinda useful.

I actually think this is the kind of deal the Reds may need to make to move JR. Of course the Reds should be shopping for a better return hopefully including a bigger dollar savings and a younger guy to help the future. A deal like this would be a fall back plan, but it could still be a positive. If Seattle assumes the option/buyout decision it would save the Reds a couple million dollars and would be a trade worth doing for both teams. Cincy basically gets the buyout off the books for 2009 and allows Bruce to assume RF and settle in on the new era. The improved defense should be a positive for the pitching staff. Sexson has been horrible and isn't the kind of guy the Reds need to be adding, but moving from the canyon in Seattle and the other big parks in his division like Oakland and Anaheim to the shoebox in Cincinnati with other hitter freindly parks like Houston and Wrigley should create a significant improvement in Sexson's numbers. If the Reds go this route, this is actually a deal the Reds should make soon with the idea that getting a bump in Sexson's numbers for a month and a half may allow them to flip him again for a prospect and a significant dollar savings.

Another aspect of this deal is it may facilitate moving Votto to LF if that is the plan and the team deals Dunn. Sexson could play 1B for the rest of the year while Votto learns on the job, hopefully speeding the learning curve and making 2009 less of a transition year.

From Seattle's perspective, Griffey is an upgrade in the DH spot and Jeff Clement may make the migration to 1B fairly soon. Of Course Seattle gets the good will bump that Griffey winding down his career to a hero's send off would create.

Sea Ray
06-10-2008, 09:43 AM
Sexson for Griffey might actually make some semblance of sense for both teams.

How does Sexson help the Reds? We have our starter at 1B. Sexson needs regular ABs to keep his long, looping swing in order. He won't get them here.

Mario-Rijo
06-10-2008, 09:56 AM
How does Sexson help the Reds? We have our starter at 1B. Sexson needs regular ABs to keep his long, looping swing in order. He won't get them here.

Yeah I don't know that it's a perfect fit although I see what people are getting at. However trading a starting OF for a RH bat off the bench and taking on an extra year of salary in the process isn't necc. what I would be looking for either. The only way I would make this deal is if Dunn has already been dealt and they see Votto as taking his place and Seattle pays the difference in Sexson's '09 salary and the '09 Jr buyout.

lollipopcurve
06-10-2008, 10:11 AM
Like I said, it wouldn't be a block buster. Each team would be trading something expensive that they don't need for something they could at least find kinda useful.

Naive. Griffey is a huge PR get for the Mariners. Their season is down the tubes, and his returning to Seattle would make fans forget that. For the Reds, dealing Griffey right after he hits 600 is a PR loser, making them look suspiciously opportunistic -- and Sexson would be nothing but a hugely expensive bat off the bench (because Votto is going to play).

So, Mariners get a feelgood homecoming for the greatest player in their history, who will start, while dumping unpopular overpayed free agent who never earned his contract. Reds perform unceremonious dump of the player they've been trying to market all year, a favorite son of sorts, for a similarly high-priced .215 hitter who will sit on the bench.

Ain't happening.

Sea Ray
06-10-2008, 10:29 AM
Yeah I don't know that it's a perfect fit although I see what people are getting at. However trading a starting OF for a RH bat off the bench and taking on an extra year of salary in the process isn't necc. what I would be looking for either. The only way I would make this deal is if Dunn has already been dealt and they see Votto as taking his place and Seattle pays the difference in Sexson's '09 salary and the '09 Jr buyout.

It is my understanding that Sexson is in the last year of his contract with Seattle. I found this from Dec 2004 when he signed:


According to the Associated Press, Sexson receives a $6 million signing bonus, $4.5 million in 2005, $11.5 million in '06 and $14 million in each of the final two seasons of the contract.

I'd be surprised if he isn't released at some point this summer. No way I'd trade Jr for this guy and that's saying something 'cause I do want Jr moved.

flyer85
06-10-2008, 10:43 AM
While that type of deal may be the only way to move Jr I don't see the Reds moving him just for the sake of doing it. At the moment there is not a real OF option that is good enough to push Jr out of the lineup(even though it wouldn't happen anyway).

jojo
06-10-2008, 10:56 AM
However trading a starting OF for a RH bat off the bench and taking on an extra year of salary in the process isn't necc. what I would be looking for either. The only way I would make this deal is if Dunn has already been dealt and they see Votto as taking his place and Seattle pays the difference in Sexson's '09 salary and the '09 Jr buyout.

Sexson isn't under contract for '09. Given Jr's buyout, the money would roughly be equal.

Scrap Irony
06-10-2008, 11:37 AM
But the talent isn't. Sexson is horrid. Junior is... average. If salaries are equal, this makes little sense for Cincinnati. What does make sense is a larger deal (a true blockbuster) involving Junior and a high-priced player or two from Seattle and a few young guys from the Reds.

I was thinking of something like this:
Reds trade Edwin Encarnacion, Ken Griffey, Jr., David Ross, Homer Bailey, Matt Maloney, Josh Roenicke, and Drew Stubbs for Adrain Beltre, Jeff Clement, and Eric Bedard.

Seattle grabs two right-now everyday starters, two starting pitchers, an erstwhile set-up man, a back-up catcher, and a B prospect CF for an expensive 3B, a disappointing starting pitcher a year from free agency, and a B prospect catcher. They get cheaper and much younger while not destroying their youth movement.

Cincinnati grabs a decent defensive 3B who might blossom in a smaller home park back in the NL, a catcher for now and the future, and a Jocketty Special. Assuming Jocketty re-signs Bedard (using a portion of Dunn's money and all of Junior's), Cincinnati has the best rotation in baseball, with three aces (Harang, Volquez, Bedard) and two #3's (Arroyo and Cueto).

jojo
06-10-2008, 11:41 AM
Naive. Griffey is a huge PR get for the Mariners. Their season is down the tubes, and his returning to Seattle would make fans forget that. For the Reds, dealing Griffey right after he hits 600 is a PR loser, making them look suspiciously opportunistic -- and Sexson would be nothing but a hugely expensive bat off the bench (because Votto is going to play).

So, Mariners get a feelgood homecoming for the greatest player in their history, who will start, while dumping unpopular overpayed free agent who never earned his contract. Reds perform unceremonious dump of the player they've been trying to market all year, a favorite son of sorts, for a similarly high-priced .215 hitter who will sit on the bench.

I don't think there is anything naive about arguing such a trade would benefit both clubs. Concerning the PR bump, sure the Ms would have a feel good ad campaign. The impact on actual revenue is another story.

BTW, it's not like Jr is filling seats in GABP either (or on the road for that matter-I think 12 people not in uniform saw him hit #600).

jojo
06-10-2008, 11:48 AM
But the talent isn't. Sexson is horrid. Junior is... average. If salaries are equal, this makes little sense for Cincinnati. What does make sense is a larger deal (a true blockbuster) involving Junior and a high-priced player or two from Seattle and a few young guys from the Reds.

Jr is currently almost .030 of OPS below average for an NL RFer and his glove bleeds runs.


I was thinking of something like this:
Reds trade Edwin Encarnacion, Ken Griffey, Jr., David Ross, Homer Bailey, Matt Maloney, Josh Roenicke, and Drew Stubbs for Adrain Beltre, Jeff Clement, and Eric Bedard.

That basically involves trading a significant portion of the legit talent on the Ms 40 man roster for essentially sloppy seconds. Shrinking payroll probably isn't going to be priority number one for Seattle.

lollipopcurve
06-10-2008, 11:55 AM
I don't think there is anything naive about arguing such a trade would benefit both clubs.

I think there is something naive about it. Junior is a guaranteed boon to Seattle baseball. Sexson is worse than Andy Phillips, the current RH backup 1st baseman, and he costs millions and millions more.

jojo
06-10-2008, 12:23 PM
I think there is something naive about it. Junior is a guaranteed boon to Seattle baseball. Sexson is worse than Andy Phillips, the current RH backup 1st baseman, and he costs millions and millions more.

Calling Jr an economic boon is begging the question. Sexson is actually an upgrade over Phillips because of his power potential but I agree the majority of the upgrade for the Red is associated with parting ways with Jr.

The point is that either way, Jr's money is a sunk cost.

Patrick Bateman
06-10-2008, 12:30 PM
Sexson for Griffey is really a sideways type of move IMO. Griffey's bat is coming around a bit, and could be an attractrive DH option to an AL team as the deadline approaches. Griffey could have some value to a team, and if anything draw attention to a team.

Rather than finding an equally undesirable player for the Reds, I think they could move Griffey to a team that can afford to eat a portion of a salary and actually give the Reds some extra payroll space next season.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2008, 01:10 PM
Sexson for Griffey is really a sideways type of move IMO. Griffey's bat is coming around a bit, and could be an attractrive DH option to an AL team as the deadline approaches. Griffey could have some value to a team, and if anything draw attention to a team.

Rather than finding an equally undesirable player for the Reds, I think they could move Griffey to a team that can afford to eat a portion of a salary and actually give the Reds some extra payroll space next season.

Yep. I'm glad Cincy's not in the business of providing corporate welfare to Seattle by taking on perhaps the single worst hitter-to-dollar-figure in all of baseball. Makes no sense to anyone other than Seattle.

lollipopcurve
06-10-2008, 01:13 PM
The point is that either way, Jr's money is a sunk cost.

Nope -- they're still marketing him, and there is no discernable in-house replacement for him that would undoubtedly be an upgrade.

Falls City Beer
06-10-2008, 01:15 PM
Nope -- they're still marketing him, and there is no discernable in-house replacement for him that would undoubtedly be an upgrade.

I don't know: even with Patterson's horrid bat, putting him in center and Bruce in right all of a sudden makes the Cincy outfield not only passable, but very good.

I have no problem getting rid of Griffey--even for nothing. But I see *NO* benefit in taking on a worse option.

Stormy
06-10-2008, 01:19 PM
Yep. I'm glad Cincy's not in the business of providing corporate welfare to Seattle by taking on perhaps the single worst hitter-to-dollar-figure in all of baseball. Makes no sense to anyone other than Seattle.

Agreed, such a move would be completely counterproductive to the Reds. Even at current levels, Griffey is still more productive than any internal RF replacement, and dumping him in exchange for a completely useless and impotent RH bat like Sexson's doesn't make any sense.

What's your current take on "Bulldog Bedard"? I know you formerly thought Bedard was the difference between the Reds contending in 2008, do you still covet him? I think he's looked awful the few times I've seen him since his return.

flyer85
06-10-2008, 01:20 PM
there is no discernable in-house replacement for him that would undoubtedly be an upgrade.which is the real issue for me. I'd go for a Jr/Sexson deal if the Reds had an option in the OF they would make a decent improvement. I don't see it at the moment(Patterson, Hairston, Freel, Hopper are not it).

Falls City Beer
06-10-2008, 01:22 PM
Agreed, such a move would be completely counterproductive to the Reds. Even at current levels, Griffey is still more productive than any internal RF replacement, and dumping him in exchange for a completely useless and impotent RH bat like Sexson's doesn't make any sense.

What's your current take on "Bulldog Bedard"? I know you formerly thought Bedard was the difference between the Reds contending in 2008, do you still covet him? I think he's looked awful the few times I've seen him since his return.

I'd still love to have Bedard. He's been head-and-shoulders better than Arroyo, and would likely have had the Reds in the thick of it right now.

I wouldn't have traded Bruce to get him (and I said so), but I would have parted with Homer and Votto, easily. (Though I'm not sure that was an option).

flyer85
06-10-2008, 01:25 PM
I can't see Bavasi dealing Bedard, too much invested to admit making the deal was a mistake. Of course, Bavasi has made so many bad decisions it is amazing ... just goes to show you that you can be a major league GM and be absolutely clueless about how the game actually works.

lollipopcurve
06-10-2008, 01:25 PM
but I would have parted with Homer and Votto, easily.

For 2 years of Bedard? Big mistake, in my opinion.

Jpup
06-10-2008, 01:33 PM
I'm not sure trading Votto for anything is a good idea. He should be a Red for a long, long time.

flyer85
06-10-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure trading Votto for anything is a good idea. there are things I'd be willing to trade Votto for, not sure that Bedard is one of them.

mth123
06-10-2008, 01:36 PM
I've come out in favor of a JR/Sexson deal if nothing else occurs so I'll respond to a couple things.

The reason to move JR is to get him out of RF. This team has made its bed with Harang, Arroyo, Cueto, Volquez and apparantly Bailey. The two vets are showing obvious signs of fatigue, Volquez is already fairly inefficient with his pitches and Cueto and Bailey are still young enough to be in the danger zone when the pitch count gets run up. The last thing this team needs is for that group to be facing so many extra batters as a result of the dink and dunk base hits that happen more in RF than in any other part of the park. IMO, getting JR out of RF soon is paramount to the long-term health of this team's future. So while the Reds don't really have a great alternative to JR, some one like Freel, Hairston, even Hopper in CF wth Bruce in RF would probably go a long way towards helping this staff. If the team wants to give Patterson one more try or give Dickerson a shot it would improve the defensive situation even more.

I still think the situation with Dunn is pretty obvious at this point and the Yonder pick makes it appear that Votto's future is probably in LF. Richie Sexson would be the stopgap at 1B while Votto learns the OF. Even with Votto's inexperience a Votto, Cast of Thousands, Bruce OF is significantly better defensively than Dunn, Bruce, Griffey. That helps establish the offensive core (Votto and Bruce in the OF corners) and gives the pitching staff a fighting chance to still be standing at the end of the season. A half a season of LF for Votto now, makes him a better LF in 2009 when this team tries again.

Lollipop makes a good point about the attendance effect of Griffey to Seattle. That may well be worth Seattle coughing up some cash in the deal. There also is the consideration that much of Griffey's salary is deferred. Even if Seattle pays the buyout they probably come out better financially and definitely from an immediate cash flow standpoint. Besides, Seattle seems motivated to acquire Griffey. The Reds are simply getting "addition by subtraction" in this deal. Seattle gets that with Sexson as well. I'd be in favor of the deal staright-up because of the effect it has on setting up the future for the Reds, but I certainly think Seattle is acquiring more value here. Most of Griffey's negatives would be neutralized if he was a DH and not an everyday OF. Its probably worth the M's kicking in some cash or even a prospect.

This is all dependent on the Reds deciding to cash in 2008 and turn their attention towards 2009. I think Moving Griffey probably would help the 2008 team, but moving Dunn and putting Votto in LF would be clear future moves and weaken the current team. I'd like this team to continue to try and win in 2008 (which means keeping Dunn, Votto at 1B and no place for Sexson to play) but moving JR is both a win now and a future move IMO.

Sea Ray
06-10-2008, 02:18 PM
I don't think there is anything naive about arguing such a trade would benefit both clubs. Concerning the PR bump, sure the Ms would have a feel good ad campaign. The impact on actual revenue is another story.

BTW, it's not like Jr is filling seats in GABP either (or on the road for that matter-I think 12 people not in uniform saw him hit #600).

Assuming the money's equal, it's not a good trade for the Reds. Griffey will play everyday for the Ms either in RF or as a DH while Sexson will sit the bench. How is that an equal trade for both teams?

Sea Ray
06-10-2008, 02:23 PM
The Reds are simply getting "addition by subtraction" in this deal. Seattle gets that with Sexson as well. I'd be in favor of the deal staright-up because of the effect it has on setting up the future for the Reds, but I certainly think Seattle is acquiring more value here. Most of Griffey's negatives would be neutralized if he was a DH and not an everyday OF. Its probably worth the M's kicking in some cash or even a prospect.




I don't see Griffey as bad enough to warrant addition by subtraction because it's not like he's blocking a Jay Bruce or a Josh Hamilton, but if you do want to get rid of Griffey, I'd much prefer lower level minor leaguers to Sexson. Shows how little I think of Sexson...

Sea Ray
06-10-2008, 02:28 PM
That basically involves trading a significant portion of the legit talent on the Ms 40 man roster for essentially sloppy seconds. Shrinking payroll probably isn't going to be priority number one for Seattle.


We agree here Jojo. No way I'd do that trade as a Reds fan. That's an awful lot of talent to give up for high priced veterans. The only way I'd do it is if I was convinced Clement was our longterm answer at catcher which I'm not. I'm of the opinion that the PCL overestimates hitting abilities and this is evidenced by the struggles of Clement, Adam Jones and Balentien in the majors. I haven't seen Clement behind the plate enough to venture an opinion on his defensive skills.

jojo
06-10-2008, 02:54 PM
Assuming the money's equal, it's not a good trade for the Reds. Griffey will play everyday for the Ms either in RF or as a DH while Sexson will sit the bench. How is that an equal trade for both teams?

The calculus is pretty simply. Both are players whose departure would serve their teams while each trade partner would find the addition potentially useful.


Yep. I'm glad Cincy's not in the business of providing corporate welfare to Seattle by taking on perhaps the single worst hitter-to-dollar-figure in all of baseball. Makes no sense to anyone other than Seattle.

It's not corporate welfare. It's two teams swapping similar contracts because given their rosters, the contract they'd get back is a little more "valuable" due to the resulting effect on the roster.

In any event, while it would never happen, it probably would help the Reds squeeze some extra "win juice" from the apple cart.

jojo
06-10-2008, 03:02 PM
I'm of the opinion that the PCL overestimates hitting abilities and this is evidenced by the struggles of Clement, Adam Jones and Balentien in the majors. I haven't seen Clement behind the plate enough to venture an opinion on his defensive skills.

Obviously the PCL is a hitters league but that's pretty easy to account for when projecting players.

BTW, Clement had 48 at bats as an M this season. Wlad wasn't ready to begin with either offensively or defensively. Jones is 22 with less than 360 major league at bats. it's a little early in any of their careers to conclude anything.

Sea Ray
06-10-2008, 03:21 PM
The calculus is pretty simply. Both are players whose departure would serve their teams while each trade partner would find the addition potentially useful.



That's the rub. It's debatable that Sexson would be useful here in Cincinnati. There's no place for him to play and I would argue he's not useful as a PH off the bench. For example Jr has not shown himself to be a good PH, thus I would not suggest a team acquire him either without a plan to play him everyday. So unless a starting spot opens up for Sexson, I don't see how he is "useful".

lollipopcurve
06-10-2008, 03:36 PM
So unless a starting spot opens up for Sexson, I don't see how he is "useful".

Right. And, it's highly questionable that the Reds have an OF waiting in the wings that would outperform Griffey.

jojo
06-10-2008, 03:41 PM
Right. And, it's highly questionable that the Reds have an OF waiting in the wings that would outperform Griffey.

Right now Jr has a VORP of 5.6. I doubt many would argue that his defensive value doesn't wipe a significant amount of that off of the board.

mth123
06-10-2008, 03:49 PM
I don't see Griffey as bad enough to warrant addition by subtraction because it's not like he's blocking a Jay Bruce or a Josh Hamilton, but if you do want to get rid of Griffey, I'd much prefer lower level minor leaguers to Sexson. Shows how little I think of Sexson...

I agree. I'd do that too. I don't think any other team would. This is more about a graceful way of getting JR out of RF. The other choices are a bad scene that benching him would create or leaving him in there. IMO, leaving Griffey in there is not an option. I don't care how much he hits or if his replacement ever gets a hit. I think he needs out of there for the sake of Harang, Arroyo, Volquez and especially Cueto and Bailey.

lollipopcurve
06-10-2008, 03:54 PM
Right now Jr has a VORP of 5.6. I doubt many would argue that his defensive value doesn't wipe a significant amount of that off of the board.

Who's your replacement, Patterson in CF?

mth123
06-10-2008, 03:56 PM
Who's your replacement, Patterson in CF?

For the sake of the pitching staff? YES!!!

REDREAD
06-10-2008, 03:57 PM
I still think the situation with Dunn is pretty obvious at this point and the Yonder pick makes it appear that Votto's future is probably in LF. .


Good points, but I wanted to focus on this.

I hope the plan is not to put Votto in LF.

I'd prefer that when Yonder is ready, the Reds decide between Votto and Yonder and trade the one they don't want.
I'd rather not play a 1b in LF. Dunn's great offense makes it more palatable, but this team has had a horrible defense for quite awhile now. I'd prefer them to stop playing guys out of position and start looking for guys that can at least field their position at an average level. In other words, trade Votto or Yonder for a legit OF if it comes to that...

RedsManRick
06-10-2008, 03:58 PM
For the sake of the pitching staff? YES!!!

That one could make an argument suggesting that Patterson is equally valuable as Junior at this point (read: replacement level) says pretty much all you need to know about Jr.

I'm of the opinion that unless a trade is a clear win for the Reds in future value, that the PR hit wouldn't be worth it. A lateral move like Sexson just rocks the boat without much benefit.

bucksfan2
06-10-2008, 03:59 PM
Griffey for Sexson would be awful IMHO. If the reds do move Griffey they would need to move him for both financial relief and cap relief. His defense has been pretty awful this season but his bat has started to come around as of late. Also a Griffey trade would enable Dusty to start Patterson in the OF every day for the rest of the season. In Sexson you aren't getting anything of value and Votto may just be a better hitter against lefties than Sexson has become.

REDREAD
06-10-2008, 03:59 PM
Right now Jr has a VORP of 5.6. I doubt many would argue that his defensive value doesn't wipe a significant amount of that off of the board.

But what is Patterson's, Freel or Hopper's VORP?

The point is that the other options stink worse..

jojo
06-10-2008, 04:13 PM
But what is Patterson's, Freel or Hopper's VORP?

The point is that the other options stink worse..

I'd argue that Patterson's -5.6 VORP is basically wiped off the boards by his defense.

Basically, so far, Jr and Patterson have had roughly similar value because Patterson plays defense and he does it in centerfield.

lollipopcurve
06-10-2008, 04:24 PM
I'm of the opinion that unless a trade is a clear win for the Reds in future value, that the PR hit wouldn't be worth it. A lateral move like Sexson just rocks the boat without much benefit.

Exactly. The potential downside is unacceptable -- Patterson continues to hit sub-.200 and is booed constantly at home. Meanwhile Griffey goes off to Seattle -- which he doesn't want to do at this point, but no matter -- and hits well in front of adoring fans, passing Sosa to become 5th all-time. Sexson soaks up Junior's budget number while rarely appearing on the field. Why would the Reds, in what shapes up as a mediocre season, risk falling into a nightmare like that in the 2nd half?

Junior is gaining in popularity in Cincinnati. He still has Sosa to pass, and that will be a positive story for weeks to come. It's going to take a lot more than a salary swap for a .215-hitting bench player to entice the Reds to give up what Griffey still has to offer.

Stormy
06-10-2008, 04:43 PM
Griffey is still getting on at a nearly .370 OBP clip, and there's no reason to think that his SLG% won't come around to much more respectable potency. Replacing Griffey means potentially starting Patterson in CF, trading Griff's 370OBP for the league's worst 240OBP, while also potentially creating a platoon which occasionally gets Sexson's worthless bat and miserable .290OBP on the field, as well. That's a lose, lose by any definition. Let Griffey play out the string this season, and make the acquisition of a potent RHH OF the key target for this coming offseason.

P.S. I agree with Redread, in that I don't want Votto moved to LF a.) definitely not until we see if Yonder is ready, and b.) I'd rather maximize him as a 1B, whether that means trading the odd man out, or keeping him at 1B and looking for a LF of the future elsewhere.

mth123
06-10-2008, 05:04 PM
Good points, but I wanted to focus on this.

I hope the plan is not to put Votto in LF.

I'd prefer that when Yonder is ready, the Reds decide between Votto and Yonder and trade the one they don't want.
I'd rather not play a 1b in LF. Dunn's great offense makes it more palatable, but this team has had a horrible defense for quite awhile now. I'd prefer them to stop playing guys out of position and start looking for guys that can at least field their position at an average level. In other words, trade Votto or Yonder for a legit OF if it comes to that...

I'd like to see how he does. I personally am for keeping Dunn in LF if the team has a good CF and a Bruce in RF. One guy out there in the least important spot in the defense is ok. Votto seems athletic and may be able to play there for a few years. But, if he is Griffeyesque, with balls falling in for hits all over the place, then by all means, make a deal.

PuffyPig
06-10-2008, 05:40 PM
Griffey is still getting on at a nearly .370 OBP clip, and there's no reason to think that his SLG% won't come around to much more respectable potency. Replacing Griffey means potentially starting Patterson in CF, trading Griff's 370OBP for the league's worst 240OBP, while also potentially creating a platoon which occasionally gets Sexson's worthless bat and miserable .290OBP on the field, as well. That's a lose, lose by any definition. Let Griffey play out the string this season, and make the acquisition of a potent RHH OF the key target for this coming offseason.

P.S. I agree with Redread, in that I don't want Votto moved to LF a.) definitely not until we see if Yonder is ready, and b.) I'd rather maximize him as a 1B, whether that means trading the odd man out, or keeping him at 1B and looking for a LF of the future elsewhere.


I agree, unless we can trade Griffey for his replacement, and I don't mean a replacement for this year only.

If we can trade Griffey for a promising OF who we can insert into the lineup today, then it makes sense. But I doubt we could pull that off.

Kc61
06-13-2008, 11:52 AM
If the Reds don't intend to sign Dunn, how about?

Dunn and Griffey to Seattle for Bedard and Sexton.

Or somebody other than Sexton.

Or Dunn, Griffey and Homer Bailey to Seattle for Bedard, Sexton and a young player/prospect.

My guess is Griffey wouldn't want Seattle and would nix the deal. Maybe.

So how about Dunn and Bailey for Bedard and a prospect.

I think Bedard still has a lot of value.

PuffyPig
06-13-2008, 12:48 PM
If the Reds don't intend to sign Dunn, how about?

Dunn and Griffey to Seattle for Bedard and Sexton.

Or somebody other than Sexton.

Or Dunn, Griffey and Homer Bailey to Seattle for Bedard, Sexton and a young player/prospect.

My guess is Griffey wouldn't want Seattle and would nix the deal. Maybe.

So how about Dunn and Bailey for Bedard and a prospect.

I think Bedard still has a lot of value.

Why would a non-contending team trade for Dunn?

It makes zero sense.

If the Mariners move Bedard, it will be for young players who will help their future.

Kc61
06-13-2008, 01:05 PM
Why would a non-contending team trade for Dunn?

It makes zero sense.

If the Mariners move Bedard, it will be for young players who will help their future.

Seattle may want to get rid of the 2009 commitment to pay Bedard. They need power hitting and Dunn fits their park well because he can hit it out of the big stadium.

They gamble that Dunn will re-sign; at worst they get draft choices; and they are rid of Bedard's 2009 contract.

Maybe they insist on a prospect from the Reds too. That's why I added Bailey to one of the scenarios.

Patrick Bateman
06-13-2008, 01:12 PM
Bedard has plenty of trade value..... there would be no reason to want to get out of the 2009 deal. He's had a rough year, but basically any team would be willing to gamble on Bedard for a 1 year deal. Without huge commitment, your only risking 1 year's salary of Bedard which really isn't that pricy now adays. Being that Dunn is a pending FA, he's not a fit in a Bedard trade.

jojo
06-13-2008, 07:12 PM
Bedard has plenty of trade value..... there would be no reason to want to get out of the 2009 deal. He's had a rough year, but basically any team would be willing to gamble on Bedard for a 1 year deal. Without huge commitment, your only risking 1 year's salary of Bedard which really isn't that pricy now adays. Being that Dunn is a pending FA, he's not a fit in a Bedard trade.

Actually minus his 4 IP, 9 ER start against the Yanks, sportswriters would be raving about his season....

jojo
06-13-2008, 07:15 PM
Seattle may want to get rid of the 2009 commitment to pay Bedard. They need power hitting and Dunn fits their park well because he can hit it out of the big stadium.

They gamble that Dunn will re-sign; at worst they get draft choices; and they are rid of Bedard's 2009 contract.

Maybe they insist on a prospect from the Reds too. That's why I added Bailey to one of the scenarios.

The Ms are willingly paying Silva $11M, Washburn $10.5M, and Batista $9M in '09. I'm guessing Bedard's expected raise isn't an issue for them especially since it's not an organisation that is prone to the "burn it down" to rebuild approach.

Sea Ray
06-15-2008, 05:49 PM
Actually minus his 4 IP, 9 ER start against the Yanks, sportswriters would be raving about his season....

Actually his own manager isn't too enthralled with him and he's seen all of Bedard's starts. McLaren pretty much sees Bedard as a 6 inning pitcher. This came out of the Seattle Times yesterday:



McLaren's most interesting comments today were about Erik Bedard's status as pitcher who pretty much is done at 100 pitches.

"I think that's basically what he is,'' Mc"Laren said. "That's the way he was in Baltimore. Basically, he's programmed to go 100 pitches.

"There's not an easy way to put it. I'd love to see him go further, but if he's not capable, he's not capable....There's no use dwelling on it. It is what it is. He's a 100-pitch pitcher."

I think it's safe to say McLaren does not consider Bedard an ace or anything close. 6 inning pitchers are generally 4th and 5th guys.

jojo
06-15-2008, 07:37 PM
Actually his own manager isn't too enthralled with him and he's seen all of Bedard's starts. McLaren pretty much sees Bedard as a 6 inning pitcher. This came out of the Seattle Times yesterday:




I think it's safe to say McLaren does not consider Bedard an ace or anything close. 6 inning pitchers are generally 4th and 5th guys.

Appealing to McLaren as an authority is a tough way to establish a point. In fact it's very possible that he won't be seeing Atlanta with the Ms (in any other organization, it would be extremely likely he wouldn't).

Bedard is one of the better left-handed starters in the game. If MClaren disagrees because somehow Bedard isn't gritty enough, well I take it as a symptom of another, more pressing problem the Ms need to deal with.

BTW, I've seen all of Bedard's starts too.

Sea Ray
06-15-2008, 09:45 PM
Appealing to McLaren as an authority is a tough way to establish a point. In fact it's very possible that he won't be seeing Atlanta with the Ms (in any other organization, it would be extremely likely he wouldn't).

Bedard is one of the better left-handed starters in the game. If MClaren disagrees because somehow Bedard isn't gritty enough, well I take it as a symptom of another, more pressing problem the Ms need to deal with.

BTW, I've seen all of Bedard's starts too.

Yes, McLaren is the Mariners' Jerry Narron--a good baseball guy who can't seem to manage wins. I agree, he's about to get fired and the way his team has played on his watch he probably deserves it.

But the issue here isn't mcLaren. Just because he hasn't worked out as Seattle's manager doesn't mean his opinion of Bedard is wrong. So why do you disagree with McLaren's assessment of Bedard? I think he's right on the money.

As for the Mariners' problems, you've got to blame Bavasi before McLaren. He's had a $100+ million payroll for many years now and has nothing to show for it. That's a pretty bad indictment of a GM.

jojo
06-15-2008, 11:07 PM
But the issue here isn't mcLaren. Just because he hasn't worked out as Seattle's manager doesn't mean his opinion of Bedard is wrong. So why do you disagree with McLaren's assessment of Bedard?

Actually, I agree 100% with his assessment that there is no use dwelling on his desire that he could get higher pitch counts from Bedard.

What I disagree with is your notion that because a pitcher tends to be less effective after 100 pitches what he does during those 100 pitches is somehow less valuable.

Every rotation in the major leagues would be significantly improved by the addition of Bedard.


I think he's right on the money.

What manager wouldn't want Bedard with Harang's durability? It's kind of like harping on Dunn's batting average though-it's a flawed approach to player evaluation because it leads to things like arguing Bedard is a #4 or #5 starter.

Sea Ray
06-15-2008, 11:27 PM
What manager wouldn't want Bedard with Harang's durability? It's kind of like harping on Dunn's batting average though-it's a flawed approach to player evaluation because it leads to things like arguing Bedard is a #4 or #5 starter.


If you want to argue that he's pitched like a #1 or #2 this year have at it. I agree with McLaren's assessment and he sounds very frustrated in what he's gotten from Bedard but I could be reading his comments wrong.

jojo
06-15-2008, 11:38 PM
If you want to argue that he's pitched like a #1 or #2 this year have at it. I agree with McLaren's assessment and he sounds very frustrated in what he's gotten from Bedard but I could be reading his comments wrong.

I think you are if you're interpreting them to mean Bedard is a #4 or #5.

If anything his comments are suggesting that he expected something akin to a 100 pitch limit. If you want to read between the lines, you might sniff a thinly veiled attempt to suggest Bedard isn't a gamer (as if that's the reason McLaren is about to be fired).

McLaren should be frustrated-it's a healthy response to trying your very best and still facing termination because you simply suck at what you do.

Sea Ray
06-16-2008, 12:02 AM
I think you are if you're interpreting them to mean Bedard is a #4 or #5.

If anything his comments are suggesting that he expected something akin to a 100 pitch limit. If you want to read between the lines, you might sniff a thinly veiled attempt to suggest Bedard isn't a gamer (as if that's the reason McLaren is about to be fired).

McLaren should be frustrated-it's a healthy response to trying your very best and still facing termination because you simply suck at what you do.

I think McLaren was not expecting a pitcher with a 100 pitch limit when he traded Adam Jones et al for Bedard. As to whether he's a 4 or 5 or 1 or 2, who's to say? But he's clearly not what McLaren hoped he'd be.

Getting innings out of starters has been a problem for the Ms for awhile. Last year the bullpen wore down in the 2nd half and was a factor in their collapse. This year innings from starters have been even more of a problem and the bullpen is getting overexposed again. Today's pitcher who gave up the 4 runs in the 8th (was it Lowe?) is not a bad reliever but he's been overworked and today it showed.

jojo
06-16-2008, 08:07 AM
I think McLaren was not expecting a pitcher with a 100 pitch limit when he traded Adam Jones et al for Bedard.

First, McLaren was jumping for joy when Bavasi traded for Bedard. Second, if McLaren wasn't expecting Bedard to max out around 100-110 pitches, then McLaren is an ostrich and baseball is played near a sandy beach.


As to whether he's a 4 or 5 or 1 or 2, who's to say? But he's clearly not what McLaren hoped he'd be.

Given Bedard's performance to this point, that's clearly on McLaren.


Getting innings out of starters has been a problem for the Ms for awhile. Last year the bullpen wore down in the 2nd half and was a factor in their collapse.

The bullpen was way down on the list of reasons for their collapse and was dwarfed by the fact that they simply weren't a very good team. That tends to catch up to every mediocre roster.


This year innings from starters have been even more of a problem and the bullpen is getting overexposed again. Today's pitcher who gave up the 4 runs in the 8th (was it Lowe?) is not a bad reliever but he's been overworked and today it showed.

And looking at their rotation, all of this is somehow Bedard's fault?

Sea Ray
06-16-2008, 09:05 AM
And looking at their rotation, all of this is somehow Bedard's fault?

I don't know of anyone, Me or McLaren who said it's all Bedard's fault. Where did you hear that?

Bedard's just a part of the problem

blumj
06-16-2008, 09:49 AM
The O's got closer to 7 out of Bedard's 100 per last season. Maybe the M's defense is costing him too many pitches.

jojo
06-16-2008, 01:23 PM
I don't know of anyone, Me or McLaren who said it's all Bedard's fault. Where did you hear that?

Bedard's just a part of the problem

Bedard isn't a problem.

Making an issue out of Bedard's pitch count is is like criticizing the pattern on the chairs as they slide down the deck of the titanic.

Sea Ray
06-17-2008, 09:51 AM
Bedard isn't a problem.

Making an issue out of Bedard's pitch count is is like criticizing the pattern on the chairs as they slide down the deck of the titanic.

There's a lot of folks who disagree with you. In fact Bedard seems to be as much to blame for this mess as Bavasi. How 'bout these scathing comments:


The Bedard Bungle will go down as Bavasi's fatal error. He traded a golden package for a faux ace who can't even throw 100 pitches without quitting.

It's no coincidence that Bavasi was fired following a horrible weekend that Bedard could've helped prevent. But for the second straight start, Bedard left a game Saturday because of fatigue.

He only wants to throw 100 pitches, and then he feels his job is done, regardless of the score, regardless of the situation. He's a 9-to-5er. Don't you dare ask him to work overtime.

I particularly found Bavasi's commentary on Bedard revealing. I sense that even he is not entralled with the guy:



I asked Bavasi on Monday about Bedard's pitch-count threshold. After bouncing between defending and explaining Bedard, the axed GM clearly exasperated said I needed to ask the pitcher.
"You gotta ask him," Bavasi said. "You gotta ask him. Good luck. And he's gonna have some stupid answer, some dumbass answer."


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2008001424_brewer17.html

So Jojo, I stand by my comment. Such a quitter is not a #1 or #2 on my staff. He's a 4th or 5th guy because of these intangibles he lacks. Sounds like the Mariners can't get his attitude off their team soon enough.

NJReds
06-17-2008, 09:56 AM
That's interesting stuff on Bedard. Especially because this weekend I heard Leo Mazzone lamenting the fact that Baltimore keeps pitchcounts on the scoreboard and that some pitchers would watch their pitchcounts and let the number dictate when they were tired. Now I know who he was talking about.

RedsManRick
06-17-2008, 10:30 AM
So Jojo, I stand by my comment. Such a quitter is not a #1 or #2 on my staff. He's a 4th or 5th guy because of these intangibles he lacks. Sounds like the Mariners can't get his attitude off their team soon enough.

Can you clarify your #x starter rubric? Here I am thinking that it's about how well a guy pitches...



The Bedard Bungle will go down as Bavasi's fatal error. He traded a golden package for a faux ace who can't even throw 100 pitches without quitting.

It's no coincidence that Bavasi was fired following a horrible weekend that Bedard could've helped prevent. But for the second straight start, Bedard left a game Saturday because of fatigue.

He only wants to throw 100 pitches, and then he feels his job is done, regardless of the score, regardless of the situation. He's a 9-to-5er. Don't you dare ask him to work overtime.

Oh I see. He got tired. Bedard got tired at a point where most starting pitchers get tired, would rather leave the game to somebody with a better chance of retiring batters, while not putting his livelihood at risk for a team that's already out of the playoff race. What a chump. How does he look in the mirror every morning?

I guess it's Bedard's fault that Bavasi traded for an old light-hitting middle IF to be his cleanup hitter. That he gave big money to Jarrod Washburn and Carlos Silva. That he extended Johjima when the best prospect in the organization was a catcher.

This is right up there with Reds fans saying Dunn's defense is the reason this team stinks.

lollipopcurve
06-17-2008, 10:32 AM
Bedard may very well be protecting himself for the big payday following 2009. That kind of stuff quickly becomes apparent to other players and the field staff.

Seattle thought they could sign him long term. As it looks now, they were wrong. I don't know who gets the blame for that.

jojo
06-17-2008, 10:41 AM
There's a lot of folks who disagree with you. In fact Bedard seems to be as much to blame for this mess as Bavasi. How 'bout these scathing comments:



I particularly found Bavasi's commentary on Bedard revealing. I sense that even he is not entralled with the guy:





http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2008001424_brewer17.html

So Jojo, I stand by my comment. Such a quitter is not a #1 or #2 on my staff. He's a 4th or 5th guy because of these intangibles he lacks. Sounds like the Mariners can't get his attitude off their team soon enough.

Weighing intangibles so greatly is an absolutely flawed approach to player evaluation and it really was a central weakness in Bavasi's inability to properly evaluate talent which was a big part of his failure.

His exit comments aren't surprising considering he thinks the biggest problem with the Ms is chemistry.

BTW, everyone who you've quoted concerning Bedard has already been fired or is a dead man walking (McLaren is a goner once a new GM takes over). I'd suggest their opinions aren't the best ones to use when contemplating Bedard's future with the Ms.

It's laughable to suggest Bedard is as much to blame for the Ms mess as Bavasi.

blumj
06-17-2008, 10:49 AM
Bedard may very well be protecting himself for the big payday following 2009. That kind of stuff quickly becomes apparent to other players and the field staff.

Seattle thought they could sign him long term. As it looks now, they were wrong. I don't know who gets the blame for that.
There's not much difference between the Eric Bedard the Mariners have now and the Eric Bedard the Orioles had a year ago. It's hard for me to blame Bedard for not becoming something else just because a team traded for him hoping for that to happen.

Sea Ray
06-17-2008, 11:38 AM
BTW, everyone who you've quoted concerning Bedard has already been fired or is a dead man walking (McLaren is a goner once a new GM takes over). I'd suggest their opinions aren't the best ones to use when contemplating Bedard's future with the Ms.

It's laughable to suggest Bedard is as much to blame for the Ms mess as Bavasi.

Well the article's author Jerry Brewer hasn't been fired by anyone.

Who's saying Bedard is as much to blame as Bavasi? There you go making up statements again.

Sea Ray
06-17-2008, 11:48 AM
Can you clarify your #x starter rubric? Here I am thinking that it's about how well a guy pitches...




Nope, it's not just how well he pitches in my mind. It's also about taking the ball when your team needs you. Aaron Harang is the type who will give you 7 or 8 innings on a night when your bullpen needs a breather and that kind of bulldog attitude has nothing to do with ERA or WHIP stats. Based upon what I'm reading coming out of Seattle, Bedard has been labeled "soft".

I have a relative who is a huge Mariner fan and has season tickets. He was fired up after the M's acquired Bedard this winter. He said this yesterday regarding Bavasi's firing:


At least two years too late! Now they (the owners) need to fire the ceo (Howard Lincoln) and President(Chuck Armstrong). Then and only then can they begin the rebuilding process!!! Do you want Bedard?

I merely asked him about Bavasi's firing. I didn't even bring up Bedard.

I think teammates appreciate a guy like Arroyo willing to take the ball on 3 days rest or Harang pitching multiple innings in the 18 innning fiasco in SD and I sense that the folks in Seattle don't have such a confidence in Bedard.

jojo
06-17-2008, 12:00 PM
Well the article's author Jerry Brewer hasn't been fired by anyone.

Well he's also not really the final authority either. He certainly doesn't speak for the Ms.


Who's saying Bedard is as much to blame as Bavasi? There you go making up statements again.

This is the comment I was responding to:


In fact Bedard seems to be as much to blame for this mess as Bavasi.

Sea Ray
06-17-2008, 02:14 PM
Well he's also not really the final authority either. He certainly doesn't speak for the Ms.



Nobody's claiming to be the "final authority" here nor is anyone claiming to be representing the M's. These are all examples of the vibes I'm receiving from the Pacific NW regarding Bedard. It seems to me they feel Bedard is not as good as they thought he was and that they paid too much for him. I thought they paid too much for him at the time and nothing he's done since then has changed my mind.

jojo
06-17-2008, 02:41 PM
Nobody's claiming to be the "final authority" here nor is anyone claiming to be representing the M's. These are all examples of the vibes I'm receiving from the Pacific NW regarding Bedard. It seems to me they feel Bedard is not as good as they thought he was and that they paid too much for him. I thought they paid too much for him at the time and nothing he's done since then has changed my mind.

I think the definition of "they" really is an important one. Brewer's thoughts, your buddy' thoughts, and the thoughts of Joe Ballfan on talk radio etc really shouldn't be conflated with the organization's thoughts on the subject.

Sea Ray
06-17-2008, 03:29 PM
I think the definition of "they" really is an important one. Brewer's thoughts, your buddy' thoughts, and the thoughts of Joe Ballfan on talk radio etc really shouldn't be conflated with the organization's thoughts on the subject.

Brewer, Joe Ballfan etc are just folks like you and me and this site is all about fan's opinions. As for the organization all we know is what we've heard from the manager and the guy who traded for Bedard. It is what it is. They're all entitled to their opinions as are you and me. We have no idea what others in the organization think and I've never claimed to know. I'd suggest not getting too worked up on how important one guy is over another. These are all just that..opinions and they are what they are.

KoryMac5
06-18-2008, 10:22 AM
Before Bavasi was canned he had this to say about Bedard and his pitch count:


"You have to ask him and I know that's no fun. And he's going to have a stupid answer for you can count on it. He's going to have some dumb-ass answer."

"He's either gassed because he's laboring. He's protecting himself because he knows even he sticks around and is mediocre he gets another 2 million bucks lopped onto his salary."

"Why doesn't he go longer? It's a real pointed question. But you need to ask him. And good luck with that."

I didn't realize Bedard has himself on a self imposed pitch count, sounds like Bavasi was growing tired of Bedard's act as well from those comments.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/mariners/2008/06/17/some_early_morning_notes_including_bavas

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 10:28 AM
Nothing says classy like throwing your big offseason acquisition under the bus. Maybe Bavasi should have done his homework before trading away the farm.

Scrap Irony
06-18-2008, 10:33 AM
I can't believe Bavasi said that. Holy cow. If I were the Mariners, I'd be ticked off. If I were Bedard, I'd punch him.

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 10:39 AM
Bedard has been a league average pitcher so far and Bavasi is going off on him. How's Carlos Silva doin' Bill? Would you prefer Bedard give you the 20 extra innings you've gotten from Silva and increase his ERA by a run and a half?

Hmm, people blaming their teams productive players for their problems. Sounds familiar.

MartyFan
06-18-2008, 10:52 AM
Why would you be upset about his comments?

Bedard has always had the reputation of being a royal jackass in the media...always...so Bavasi isn't cheerleading him anymore...big deal.

He for sure sounds "upset" at Bedard but are they not legit?

People always seem to get more upset about the truth than they do the made up stuff.

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 11:03 AM
Why would you be upset about his comments?

Bedard has always had the reputation of being a royal jackass in the media...always...so Bavasi isn't cheerleading him anymore...big deal.

He for sure sounds "upset" at Bedard but are they not legit?

People always seem to get more upset about the truth than they do the made up stuff.

It's classic "let's blame the messenger". This thread has been as much about non players like Bavasi and McLaren than about the actual performance of the players.

I for one do think Bavasi made a mistake in overpaying for Bedard but that doesn't negate his comments now. In fact it reinforces them. Sounds to me like Bavasi now sees the error of his ways.

As a Reds fan I'm glad the folks here on RZ who were clamoring for the Reds to give away the farm for Bedard aren't running the team.

jojo
06-18-2008, 11:05 AM
Why would you be upset about his comments?

Bedard has always had the reputation of being a royal jackass in the media...always...so Bavasi isn't cheerleading him anymore...big deal.

He for sure sounds "upset" at Bedard but are they not legit?

People always seem to get more upset about the truth than they do the made up stuff.

I guess it depends upon how the criticism is framed because as we've seen from earlier in the thread, it can be invalid.

Basically Bedard has had some early command issues (which no one believes will be a lasting problem) while generally not pitching past 100 to 110 pitches.

It's a none issue that has been latched onto for convenience because he didn't morph into an iron man during a period those who were sweating for their jobs thought was "critical".

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 11:05 AM
I can't believe Bavasi said that. Holy cow. If I were the Mariners, I'd be ticked off. If I were Bedard, I'd punch him.

No reason for Bedard to be upset. he's doing fine. He's making a good nickel now and will likely cash in as his free agency looms while Bavasi is now unemployed.

flyer85
06-18-2008, 11:06 AM
Sounds to me like Bavasi now sees the error of his ways.Did he bring up how dumb it was to give all that money to Sexson, Beltre and Silva ... or trading for Vidro ... or giving a 3 year extension to an aging no hit catcher?

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 11:07 AM
I guess it depends upon how the criticism is framed because as we've seen from earlier in the thread, it can be invalid.

Basically Bedard has had some early command issues (which no one believes will be a lasting problem) while generally not pitching past 100 to 110 pitches.

It's a none issue that has been latched onto for convenience because he didn't morph into an iron man during a period those who were sweating for their jobs thought was "critical".

Do you think Bedard was worth what the M's gave up for him?

jojo
06-18-2008, 11:08 AM
Did he bring up how dumb it was to give all that money to Sexson, Beltre and Silva ... or trading for Vidro ... or giving a 3 year extension to an aging no hit catcher?

:beerme:

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 11:10 AM
Did he bring up how dumb it was to give all that money to Sexson, Beltre and Silva ... or trading for Vidro ... or giving a 3 year extension to an aging no hit catcher?

I don't know why he'd voluntarily slam himself, but it'd be fun if someone would ask him about those. However, that has nothing to do with Bedard's performance. To his credit, Krivsky did face the fire in interviews after his ouster.

flyer85
06-18-2008, 11:19 AM
I don't know why he'd voluntarily slam himself, but it'd be fun if someone would ask him about those. However, that has nothing to do with Bedard's performance. To his credit, Krivsky did face the fire in interviews after his ouster.Bedards performance has been among the least of the Mariner's problems in 2008. However, Bavasi's performance marks him as one of the worst GMs of the last generation.

jojo
06-18-2008, 11:27 AM
Do you think Bedard was worth what the M's gave up for him?

I've waxed poetic on this issue (both from a Ms context and from a Reds one). I did not agree with those at redszone who wanted to throw the farm at a big name starter. Concerning the Ms, the long and the short of it was that while I thought Bedard improved the Ms, the difference wasn't nearly great enough to make them a playoff contender. I was against (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1543065&postcount=377) the trade.

BTW, that's not an indictment of Bedard. It's an indictment of Bavasi's job performance both given the woeful roster he constructed and his incomprehensible miscalculation of it's true talent level.

These are issues completely unrelated to Bedard or his performance.

You're barking up the wrong tree by fixating on Bedard both because youre valuing his performance incorrectly and because you seem to be arguing that he was the iceberg to Bavasi's titantic.

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 11:52 AM
I've waxed poetic on this issue (both from a Ms context and from a Reds one). I did not agree with those at redszone who wanted to throw the farm at a big name starter. Concerning the Ms, the long and the short of it was that while I thought Bedard improved the Ms, the difference wasn't nearly great enough to make them a playoff contender. I was against (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1543065&postcount=377) the trade.

BTW, that's not an indictment of Bedard. It's an indictment of Bavasi's job performance both given the woeful roster he constructed and his incomprehensible miscalculation of it's true talent level.

These are issues completely unrelated to Bedard or his performance.



Jojo, I completely agree with you. We have nothing to argue about. I don't know why you said this:


You're barking up the wrong tree by fixating on Bedard both because youre valuing his performance incorrectly and because you seem to be arguing that he was the iceberg to Bavasi's titantic

I'm not fixating on Bedard. His numbers are not as good as they were with the O's in recent years so his performance is part of the problem but Bavasi's performance has been far worse. I must not have made myself clear in earlier posts. That's my fault. I agree with you that Bavasi has hurt the M's far more than Bedard.

Maybe the only area we disagree is that you think Bedard is 0% responsible and I think he did play a small role in their awful 2008 season. Fair enough?

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 12:00 PM
Do you think Bedard was worth what the M's gave up for him?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I don't. I think the trade was predicated on a false understanding that Bedard was the missing piece that would make up the difference between 88 wins and the playoffs. They took the value of Bedard as a player and multiplied it by the supposed impact of that leap. The concept was ok, but the execution was poor.

I think Bavasi both underestimated the volatility in the possible performance from Bedard (trading away the value equivalent of the best case scenario) and failed to understand that the Mariners were more of a 78 win team than an 88 win team heading in to 2008.

Benihana
06-18-2008, 01:58 PM
Shocking that jojo overrated the Mariners' position once again. According to this (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080617/SPORTS/623385744), Sexson will be released in the upcoming days. I don't think the Reds will be releasing KGJ anytime soon.

jojo
06-18-2008, 02:43 PM
Shocking that jojo overrated the Mariners' position once again. According to this (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080617/SPORTS/623385744), Sexson will be released in the upcoming days.

I didn't overrate the Mariners position this time let alone "once again".

In case you haven't noticed, some significant change has occurred in Seattle's FO recently........


I don't think the Reds will be releasing KGJ anytime soon.

Which really doesn't speak to his relative value....

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 03:00 PM
I didn't overrate the Mariners position this time let alone "once again".

In case you haven't noticed, some significant change has occurred in Seattle's FO recently........



Which really doesn't speak to his relative value....

It does speak to Sexson's relative value and that's zilch. I would argue that the Reds can't afford to trade Jr for zilch. We might as well just cut him if that's the case and you surely don't subscribe to that.

Suggesting a Jr for Sexson trade represents a deviation to your usual logical tone.

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 03:02 PM
It does speak to Sexson's relative value and that's zilch. I would argue that the Reds can't afford to trade Jr for zilch. We might as well just cut him if that's the case and you surely don't subscribe to that.

Suggesting a Jr for Sexson trade represents a deviation to your usual logical tone.

Junior has value to the organization in a way Sexson doesn't. Cutting a guy isn't simply a measure of his impact on the field. The Sexson will be cut and Junior won't does not necessarily imply that Junior has (or will be) any more productive between the lines.

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 03:17 PM
The Sexson will be cut and Junior won't does not necessarily imply that Junior has (or will be) any more productive between the lines.

What it means is Sexson can be had for free or almost nothing. We know what teams are offered for its DFA players. Why give up Jr for a DFA player?

Secondly does Sexson offer anything the Reds want? I doubt the Reds will make a play for him if he's cut. Do you? If they don't try to acquire him under these circimstances then I think it's fair to say they don't feel that Sexson contributes anything of vale to the team. In conclusion, why trade Jr for a guy who offers nothing of value?

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 03:32 PM
What it means is Sexson can be had for free or almost nothing. We know what teams are offered for its DFA players. Why give up Jr for a DFA player?

A few possible reasons include:
- To out from underneath Junior's buyout
- Addition by subtraction. (Junior has been sub-replacement to date)
- To be sure you actually get Sexson. Being DFA'd, at least 14 teams are going to get a shot at him first.


Secondly does Sexson offer anything the Reds want? I doubt the Reds will make a play for him if he's cut. Do you?

Yes, he adds power off the bench and somebody who can hit lefties - as Sexson still can. I would DFA Valentin to pick up Sexson, as he would offer more value moving forward.


If they don't try to acquire him under these circumstances then I think it's fair to say they don't feel that Sexson contributes anything of vale to the team. In conclusion, why trade Jr for a guy who offers nothing of value?

You have two separate arguments going on here that have to be addressed separately.

If I were to use your assumption, that Sexson contributes nothing of value, then your conclusion is self-evident. It would seem that the real question goes back to the value Sexson would provide. You want to argue the conclusion, but on the basis of a different set of assumptions than Jojo. That's a problem. Unless you guys can agree on the assumptions (namely the value provided by Junior and Sexson respectively), the conclusion discussion is pointless.

Lastly, I would make the point that value does not exist in a vacuum. It is truly in the eye of the beholder. For a team with no back-up 1B and a glaring hole at RH bench bat, Sexson has some value. The reality is that I wouldn't trade Junior for Sexson unless they picked up his buyout, as Junior's bat sill carries a decent amount of upside and the PR hit wouldn't be worth the trouble. But that doesn't make it unreasonable.

jojo
06-18-2008, 03:32 PM
What it means is Sexson can be had for free or almost nothing. We know what teams are offered for its DFA players. Why give up Jr for a DFA player?

At the time of the thread in question he couldn't. And it's not a given that if interested, the Reds could get him if he is DFA'd.


Secondly does Sexson offer anything the Reds want? I doubt the Reds will make a play for him if he's cut. Do you? If they don't try to acquire him under these circimstances then I think it's fair to say they don't feel that Sexson contributes anything of vale to the team. In conclusion, why trade Jr for a guy who offers nothing of value?

I don't know....maybe having someone on the bench that was hitting (.349/.417/.581) against left-handed pitchers might have been nice last night...

And that was the point. Both players are really just expensive replacement level producers whose skill sets can't be leveraged by their current teams. However, each offers something that their proposed new team could leverage.

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 04:14 PM
A few possible reasons include:
- To out from underneath Junior's buyout
- Addition by subtraction. (Junior has been sub-replacement to date)
- To be sure you actually get Sexson. Being DFA'd, at least 14 teams are going to get a shot at him first.



Yes, he adds power off the bench and somebody who can hit lefties - as Sexson still can. I would DFA Valentin to pick up Sexson, as he would offer more value moving forward.



You have two separate arguments going on here that have to be addressed separately.

If I were to use your assumption, that Sexson contributes nothing of value, then your conclusion is self-evident. It would seem that the real question goes back to the value Sexson would provide. You want to argue the conclusion, but on the basis of a different set of assumptions than Jojo. That's a problem. Unless you guys can agree on the assumptions (namely the value provided by Junior and Sexson respectively), the conclusion discussion is pointless.

Lastly, I would make the point that value does not exist in a vacuum. It is truly in the eye of the beholder. For a team with no back-up 1B and a glaring hole at RH bench bat, Sexson has some value. The reality is that I wouldn't trade Junior for Sexson unless they picked up his buyout, as Junior's bat sill carries a decent amount of upside and the PR hit wouldn't be worth the trouble. But that doesn't make it unreasonable.


If the M's are willing to pickup Jr's buyout they can have him. No need to make us suffer with Sexson.

As for competing with 14 other teams you're making a huge assumption and that is that the Reds would be willing to pick up his contract. I think you know no team will do that.

I disagree that Sexson would be a better PH than Valentin. I don't think Sexson is done but I think he is best served by going to a team that plays in a hitter's park and plays him regularly. His big looping swing needs regular ABs. (Ironically Jr is like this too. He is horrible as a PH)

You're right, I do have two arguments going. There are at least two reasons why a Sexson for Jr trade is not a good one for the Reds. I could add more;)

You and I agree that this trade would not work. I guess the only thing we disagree on is whether it's "unreasonable".

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 04:22 PM
At the time of the thread in question he couldn't. And it's not a given that if interested, the Reds could get him if he is DFA'd.



I don't know....maybe having someone on the bench that was hitting (.349/.417/.581) against left-handed pitchers might have been nice last night...

And that was the point. Both players are really just expensive replacement level producers whose skill sets can't be leveraged by their current teams. However, each offers something that their proposed new team could leverage.


Any team can have him if he's DFA. You just have to be willing to pickup his contract. When this thread was started I was of the opinion that the M's were so disgusted with Sexson that they'd cut him if they couldn't deal him. I'm still of that opinion. I suppose until the M's do that, I could be wrong.

We'll have more versatile RH hitters coming back in Hairston, Kepp and Hopper. Rick's idea was to cut Valentin but he is much more accustomed to pinch hitting than Sexson, so I don't see him being moved for Sexson either. Valentin is our best LH hitting PH option as well. I don't see how adding Sexson will improve this team at all.

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 04:37 PM
For his career, Javy Valentin is has hit .201/.257/.331 as a pinch hitter. I've never understood why people assert that he's a good pinch hitter? Because he was asked to do it a lot? I'm willing to take the chance that Sexson could do better than that. I realize that there is a fairly significant DH'ing effect that most players suffer. But it's not hard to do better than a .588 OPS.

I wouldn't do it if we had to pick up his salary, certainly. But if he was released outright and we could pick him up, I'd take him over Javy in a heartbeat.

Your point about LH is interesting, but it's not like we find the need to PH for righties that often. There really isn't much LH depth on the 40-man.

Dunn
Bruce
Votto
Griffey
Bako
Valentin
Dickerson

That's it.

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 04:41 PM
For his career, Javy Valentin is has hit .201/.257/.331 as a pinch hitter. I've never understood why people assert that he's a good pinch hitter? Because he was asked to do it a lot? I'm willing to take the chance that Sexson could do better than that. I realize that there is a fairly significant DH'ing effect that most players suffer. But it's not hard to do better than a .588 OPS.

I wouldn't do it if we had to pick up his salary, certainly. But if he was released outright and we could pick him up, I'd take him over Javy in a heartbeat.

Well I must say that's thinking outside the box. Three questions.

1) Who's your LH pinch hitter?

2) What gives you the impression that Sexson will be better than Javy?

3) Is it worth eating Javy's contract?

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 04:43 PM
Your point about LH is interesting, but it's not like we find the need to PH for righties that often. There really isn't much LH depth on the 40-man.

Dunn
Bruce
Votto
Griffey
Bako
Valentin
Dickerson

That's it.


OK, so why throw your best LH pinch hitting option under the bus?

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 04:46 PM
OK, so why throw your best LH pinch hitting option under the bus?

Because it seems we've confused the ability to stand in the LH batters box with the ability to hit RH pitching. If I thought Valentin was significantly better against righties than Sexson, the point would have merit.

3 year splits:

Sexson vL: .258/.374/.507 (.881 OPS)
Sexson vR: .245/.326/.483 (.809 OPS)

Valentin vL: .207/.343/.345 (.688 OPS)
Valentin vR: .286/.335/.464 (.799 OPS)

I understand that Sexson has struggled as of late and would suffer a bit DH'ing, but the same case can be made against Valentin and the nature of roster is such that we rarely need a PH to face a tough righty -- it's the LOOGY's were worried about.

Sea Ray
06-18-2008, 05:01 PM
Because it seems we've confused the ability to stand in the LH batters box with the ability to hit RH pitching. If I thought Valentin was significantly better against righties than Sexson, the point would have merit.

3 year splits:

Sexson vL: .258/.374/.507 (.881 OPS)
Sexson vR: .245/.326/.483 (.809 OPS)

Valentin vL: .207/.343/.345 (.688 OPS)
Valentin vR: .286/.335/.464 (.799 OPS)

I understand that Sexson has struggled as of late and would suffer a bit DH'ing, but the same case can be made against Valentin and the nature of roster is such that we rarely need a PH to face a tough righty -- it's the LOOGY's were worried about.

Rick, I admire your desire to improve upon Valentin as an option off the bench but I disagree that Sexson is the guy to target. I must say I don't have his PH stats but I did see that his worst stats were for his 1st AB vs a pitcher in a game. The stats get better with the 2nd and 3rd time. I also generally saw him having at least 3 ABs per game appearance which tells me he was rarely used as a PH.

I don't think he's a good target as a PH option.

jojo
06-18-2008, 10:13 PM
I must say I don't have his PH stats but I did see that his worst stats were for his 1st AB vs a pitcher in a game. The stats get better with the 2nd and 3rd time.

You could be describing Arod or really just about any major league hitter....


I also generally saw him having at least 3 ABs per game appearance which tells me he was rarely used as a PH.

I don't think he's a good target as a PH option.

That just indicates Sexson was productive enough to be a regular on the teams he played for throughout his career...

Besides, your argument suggests pinch hitting is a special skill which it really isn't.

Sea Ray
06-19-2008, 08:22 AM
You could be describing Arod or really just about any major league hitter....



That just indicates Sexson was productive enough to be a regular on the teams he played for throughout his career...

Besides, your argument suggests pinch hitting is a special skill which it really isn't.

Arod probably isn't geared for pinch hitting either but that's another subject altogether.

As for Sexson, I wasn't looking at his game stats for his entire career. I was merely looking at this year and clearly this year he is not productive enough to be a regular.

I am of the opinion that pinch hitting is a special skill. It's not something everybody's cut out for. Guys like Lenny Harris, Mark Sweeney and Manny Mota made a career out of pinch hitting. If not for that skill their careers would have been much shorter.

How often have the M's used Sexson as a pinch hitter this year?

jojo
06-19-2008, 09:40 AM
Arod probably isn't geared for pinch hitting either but that's another subject altogether.

As for Sexson, I wasn't looking at his game stats for his entire career. I was merely looking at this year and clearly this year he is not productive enough to be a regular.

I am of the opinion that pinch hitting is a special skill. It's not something everybody's cut out for. Guys like Lenny Harris, Mark Sweeney and Manny Mota made a career out of pinch hitting. If not for that skill their careers would have been much shorter.

Lenny Harris had these career numbers: .269/.318/.349 OPS: .668. Here are his numbers as a pinch hitter: .264/.317/.337 OPS: .654. He played 9 positions.

Manny Mota had these career numbers: .304/.355/.389 OPS: .744. Here are his numbers as a pinch hitter: .300/.374/.367 OPS: .741. He played 7 positions.

Mark Sweeney has these career numbers: .256/.348/.392 OPS: .740. Here are his numbers as a pinch hitter: .264/.357/.392 OPS: .749. He's played 6 positions.

Lets be very clear. They've more or less made careers out of being utility guys. They've showed no special ability to "pinch hit" effectively. In other words they hit no differently as a pinch hitter than they did in total. While, it is true that an everyday player would generally be expected to perform better than a guy getting an at bat every 4th or 5th day, the "greatest pinch hitters in history" can only claim that they more or less didn't mind not playing everyday.

While their careers might have been prolonged by a perception that they were valuable "pinch hitters" the reality is that they could just generally hit well enough to represent an upgrade either due to a platoon split or due to the lower true skill level of the guy they were replacing. Essentially it's their true skill level as a hitter that was leveraged off of the bench that made them useful as a pinch hitter.

The notion that they were "uber" pinch hitters that displayed some unique ability relative to the role is more mystique and romance than fact.



How often have the M's used Sexson as a pinch hitter this year?

Not a single time. Why is that important?

Sea Ray
06-19-2008, 10:00 AM
Lets be very clear. They've more or less made careers out of being utility guys. They've showed no special ability to "pinch hit" effectively. In other words they hit no differently as a pinch hitter than they did in total.

While their careers might have been prolonged by a perception that they were valuable "pinch hitters" the reality is that they could just generally hit well enough to represent an upgrade either due to a platoon split or due to the lower true skill level of the guy they were replacing. Essentially it's their true skill level as a hitter that was leveraged off of the bench that made them useful as a pinch hitter.

The notion that they were "uber" pinch hitters that displayed some unique ability relative to the role is more mystique and romance than fact.



They clearly were excellent pinch hitters. Very few players can put up such high numbers as a pinch hitter. Manny Mota hit .300 as a pinch hitter. Not many guys can do that especially over an extended period. The mistake you're making is comparing their PH numbers to overall numbers. First of all you're counting PH numbers twice in that scenario. Secondly, it doesn't matter what these guys hit when they're not pinch hitting. The fact that they can produce when coming off the bench better than their peers make them very unusual historically speaking. I think you'll find that PH numbers for the avg major leaguer is not too great.


Why is that important?

This is important because it shows the M's have no confidence in Sexson as a pinch hitter. If they thought he'd succeed in that role, surely they'd use him.

Do you know what Junior's pinch hitting numbers are? My bet is they're much less than his numbers as a starter.

princeton
06-19-2008, 10:05 AM
it doesn't matter what these guys hit when they're not pinch hitting. The fact that they can produce when coming off the bench better than their peers make them very unusual historically speaking. I think you'll find that PH numbers for the avg major leaguer is not too great.

that's my take, too.

also, I think that it's a bit harder to hit late in games, isn't it?. Relievers are a tougher set; opposing managers often pick a guy out specifically to face the opposition's top PHer

the other value of perceived top PHers is that, as described above, some opposing managers actually plan their late innings around them. That's a nice thing.

jojo
06-19-2008, 10:26 AM
This is important because it shows the M's have no confidence in Sexson as a pinch hitter.

No it doesn't. And even if it did, who cares what McLaren thinks about strategy?


The fact that they can produce when coming off the bench better than their peers make them very unusual historically speaking.

We both agree that pinch hitting essentially is not a special skill-at least in the sense that the vast majority of players in history would not possess it.


Do you know what Junior's pinch hitting numbers are? My bet is they're much less than his numbers as a starter.

Career OPS: .922. Career as a PH: .914.

Sea Ray
06-19-2008, 10:52 AM
Here's a good article on how difficult it is to come off the bench cold and face a top notch reliever and produce at anything close to what you produce when you get to hit several times in a game. I agree with it:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_11_63/ai_n6355438/pg_1

But in getting back to Richie Sexson, he is not my choice as a PH off the bench. I don't think he'd do well in that role

Sea Ray
06-20-2008, 10:10 AM
Weighing intangibles so greatly is an absolutely flawed approach to player evaluation and it really was a central weakness in Bavasi's inability to properly evaluate talent which was a big part of his failure.

His exit comments aren't surprising considering he thinks the biggest problem with the Ms is chemistry.

BTW, everyone who you've quoted concerning Bedard has already been fired or is a dead man walking (McLaren is a goner once a new GM takes over). I'd suggest their opinions aren't the best ones to use when contemplating Bedard's future with the Ms.



Your comments are not in sync with what Jayson Stark said yesterday afternoon on ESPN regarding Bedard's future with the M's. He said that there were two big issues that sealed Bavasi's fate in Seattle. One was that he refused to fire McLaren and #2 he refused to deal Bedard. Ownership wants Bedard gone and Bavasi was defending the trade to acquire him and wanted to keep him.

So you can degrade Bavasi and his opinions all day long...that's easy to do... but it sounds like Bavasi had a higher opinion of Bedard than the rest of the organization. (Doesn't say much for Bedard, does it?)

You bring up Bedard's future with the M's. According to Stark his future with the M's is much less likely now that Bavasi is gone.

jojo
06-20-2008, 10:32 AM
Your comments are not in sync with what Jayson Stark said yesterday afternoon on ESPN regarding Bedard's future with the M's. He said that there were two big issues that sealed Bavasi's fate in Seattle. One was that he refused to fire McLaren and #2 he refused to deal Bedard. Ownership wants Bedard gone and Bavasi was defending the trade to acquire him and wanted to keep him.

So you can degrade Bavasi and his opinions all day long...that's easy to do... but it sounds like Bavasi had a higher opinion of Bedard than the rest of the organization. (Doesn't say much for Bedard, does it?)

You bring up Bedard's future with the M's. According to Stark his future with the M's is much less likely now that Bavasi is gone.

You really need to quit conflating a national writer's opinion with what "the organization" is actually thinking.

Stark really doesn't have a pipeline to internal sources in Seattle (as evidenced by his error filled commentary during the Bedard trade negotiations as well as the fact he doesn't bother citing any in the editorial piece in question). Basically Stark sees a last place team. Stark sees a GM fired (and starts offering his ideas on why). Then Stark says, which parts can be traded? That passes not only as baseball writing but apparently now it passes as "facts"?

Will the Ms try to trade Bedard? I don't know. They might. That said, Stark is just guessing.

Sea Ray
06-21-2008, 11:39 AM
You really need to quit conflating a national writer's opinion with what "the organization" is actually thinking.



Hey, I don't know what Stark knows or anyone else for that matter. I'm just using him as an example of "a certain reporter said this..." The reality is none of us, including you, know for sure what the organization is actually thinking. But we're fans and discussing what we hear and read is what we do. There's nothing wrong with that.

jojo
06-21-2008, 03:00 PM
Hey, I don't know what Stark knows or anyone else for that matter. I'm just using him as an example of "a certain reporter said this..." The reality is none of us, including you, know for sure what the organization is actually thinking. But we're fans and discussing what we hear and read is what we do. There's nothing wrong with that.

SR, the Ms are notorious for not allowing the Brewers and Starks of the world access-they're borderline paranoid about it. Some strong conclusions have been profited in this thread and I'm mostly just pointing out that many of the sources being used as evidence are inherently unreliable concerning the Ms.

Rather than an attempt to throttle discussion, I view it as an important consideration which should raise the quality of the discussion.

fearofpopvol1
06-22-2008, 01:51 AM
I think the M's will try to shop Bedard. They're clearly not winning this year (like they had thought) and that only gives them 1 more year of Bedard. Bedard has claimed he plans to test free agency at the end of his contract and given that the Ms appear to be going through a rebuild mode, it would make sense for them to move Bedard to a contender and get some prospects. We'll see if that happens, though.

Jpup
06-22-2008, 05:34 AM
The M's want to trade Bedard because he is a jackass. it's simple.

camisadelgolf
12-03-2010, 11:06 AM
The M's want to trade Bedard because he is a jackass. it's simple.
They could've let him walk as a free agent, but instead, they re-signed him to a minor league contract.

mdccclxix
12-03-2010, 01:53 PM
I was looking at rWAR and Bedard was still able to but up 3.3 WAR over 2 injury plagued seasons (30 starts). Adam Jones alone put up like 8 WAR in the 3 years since, but he's really found his limits, it looks like. At first he was going to be a monster it looked like. I'd keep signing this guy for cheap too if I was the M's. One good season and he'll have made the "mistake" worth it.