"Some folks around here kvetch over the guys who were traded or let go like Morse or Lahair, but they don't realize that other teams do this all the time as well. There isn't a perfect system in place to determine these things, you just go with the best information you have available."

I became disenchanted with management in 97 when they traded away José Cruz Jr. Since that time they will allow proven veterans to walk away (Ibañez). I think it is more about the money than it is talent. They would rather spend years developing players (and in a constant state of building for the future) than spend money keeping or acquiring proven veterans.

Jon Wells' wrote a great book called "Shipwrecked" that you should check into, if you're interested in the machinations of the decision making of previous Mariner clubs. Really, after reading that, not only do I have a much greater appreciation for Jack Z, but a deeper loathing for the Mariners Front Office staff. I'm actually quite pleased that Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong have both been completely unseen and unheard for the last couple of years. The less I know they're involved, the better I feel.

As for something like Cruz, that was a "win" decision, even if it was misguided. Cruz was traded for bullpen help, which was a weakness of the late 90s team, something that would continue to plague them for a while. Then again, this was the same decision making gurus who traded away arms who could have been useful for bullpen work, like Shawn Estes, Jeff Nelson (after Nelson got critical of ownership), Mike Hampton, Mike Jackson, Dave Burba, Bill Swift, and of course Derek Lowe. That's a hefty laundry list of arms that could have made one HECK of a fix for those gawdawful late 90s Mariners pens.

Ibanez walking away got us Nick Franklin. Just so you know.

Also, funny story, the building in this organization only began in 2009. Before then, Seattle was actually trading the farm for "proven vets". Didn't work out too well (ie Bedard, Broussard, Perez, HoRam - and going back, Heathcliff Slocumb, Dave Hollins, etc.). Before 2009, the last time the Mariners had a farm system worth a bean was in the late 80s and early 90s.

You may not be a SABR guy, but you sure have the mentality of one. I almost gave up on Smoak, until he started hitting home runs again. Some players are instant prodigies who have everything click right away, like Griffey, and some need time to learn the game, like Randy Johnson. Yes, some Hall of Fame players have to LEARN THE GAME!

> You may not be a SABR guy, but you sure have the mentality of one.

Explain what that even means, because last thing I saw he spent this entire thread arguing against a saber guy....

A SABR guy typically does not factor in experience as part of his analysis of player performance, because it cannot be quantified. You have admitted this to me repeatedly. I actually found it ironic that you were arguing with him about Smoak gaining experience.

> You have admitted this to me repeatedly.

Nooooooononononoo. People assume experience = success. If their "experience" is being successful, then sure. But when people say things like "we need a veteran presence" what they really should be saying is "we need talent." People don't do well because of experience, they do well because they have talent.

> that you were arguing with him about Smoak gaining experience.

This is my first post in this thread so... dunno wth you're referring to.

Talent can be grown with experience, so we actually agree on this. If a player cannot improve over time, then the experience is worthless.

And you're right, it was NABG I was referring to. You guys tend to sound the same anyway.

Actually it was me who started this thread, NOT a guy. And NABG hasn't argued but informed.

"Talent can be grown with experience, so we actually agree on this. If a player cannot improve over time, then the experience is worthless"

That is the point I have been trying to make. You have guys right out of the draft and you work with them and improve their talents but when you at the Bigs most of those issues should be already solved. It doesn't mean that a player won't go through bad streaks. I would think that having made it to the ML you have some experience under your belt be it working all the way through the farm systems or coming from a baseball family and know the game(Griffey and yes I watched him in Bellingham so he did his time at the farm levels)

Chris88
"People don't do well because of experience, they do well because they have talent."

Thank you
ALthough I have never said we need veteran players, I just expect the guys we have to perform daily. Not be happy cause 2 months into the season they are suddenly getting hot.We have a veteran (Figgins) who does nothing so I would gladly see him go for a player with less experience. I'd take a Harper for a Figgins any day.

"I think it is more about the money than it is talent. They would rather spend years developing players (and in a constant state of building for the future) than spend money keeping or acquiring proven veterans."

I smell the Oakland Athletics in what you just stated. And the Kansas City Royals. And the Minnesota Twins. And, formerly, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Baseball is a sport played by human beings, not robots. To expect them to perform at their prime on a daily basis is ludicrous and ignorant. And to expect them to know everything just because they are in the majors is asinine. It is up to their manager to decide such things.

"Baseball is a sport played by human beings, not robots. To expect them to perform at their prime on a daily basis is ludicrous and ignorant. And to expect them to know everything just because they are in the majors is asinine. It is up to their manager to decide such things."

I don't expect them to be robotic, I am talking about 2 months of non performing. If I am ingorant to think that players should play at their potenial than I guess I am just ignorant. It's one thing to slump a little and another to continually show less than average skills.
Nice name calling. I don't think it's necassary to call me names. I haven't called you names. If you disagree with my view then do it without resorting to name calling.

I never said they should know it all, heck I didn't say they should KNOW anything what I said was. "I would think that having made it to the ML you have some experience under your belt be it working all the way through the farm systems or coming from a baseball family and know the game(Griffey and yes I watched him in Bellingham so he did his time at the farm levels)"

So I said being in the majors they have some EXPIRENCE, not they know everything. So I guess I not so asinine as you think!

You need something like 400 or 500 at bats to really establish a trend. 2 months of play isn't enough to say a minor leaguer isn't progressing and isn't enough to say a major leaguer is having problems.

"And you're right, it was NABG I was referring to"

I've never said anything of the sort either.

So far in 2 months and a couple weeks average AB is about 210/235 for players playing daily. So you can't see in that amount of time a trend? So we should wait till August to see if a player is doing well? I've seen managers give kids far less time sometimes only a few games before they boot them back to minors.

Apparently you haven't noticed the rookies steadily improving over the last two weeks, their averages climbing rapidly. Or maybe you don't care because they haven't hit .300 yet. If your only expectation is that they reach .300 on the season, you might as well stop watching. .300 is considered elite, not the norm. Between .250 and .300 is the norm. For rookies still learning the game, anything above .200 is promising. People wanted Smoak out when he fell below .200, but in case you haven't noticed, HE CAME BACK UP!

400 to 500 ABs? 100+ games? Cmon man.

Not saying you demote, DFA or bench a guy based on 30 games, but Smoak wasn't going to continue all the way to July hitting as he was without questions being asked.

People have done the math man. That's how long the trends take to stabilize. Even over 2-3 SEASONS things aren't set in stone. 400-500 AB is a bare MINIMUM.

There are even things like HR/FB rate in pitchers that don't correlate across entire CAREERS. Not everything is controllable by individuals.

So, some guy who hits .150 over 200 ABs has as much chance of hitting .275 in the future as a guy who hits 0.265 over 200 ABs. Because 200 ABs are just random and have no predictive or indicative value. Gotcha.

"Apparently you haven't noticed the rookies steadily improving over the last two weeks, their averages climbing rapidly. Or maybe you don't care because they haven't hit .300 yet. If your only expectation is that they reach .300 on the season, you might as well stop watching. .300 is considered elite, not the norm. Between .250 and .300 is the norm. For rookies still learning the game, anything above .200 is promising. People wanted Smoak out when he fell below .200, but in case you haven't noticed, HE CAME BACK UP!"

I don't really watch their averages, so it doesn't matter to me. What I watch as an average fan is hitting overall. When a guy gets up to bat I am not going to pull out their stats and say oh he's only hitting .238 he's horrible. Also Smoak is not a rookie and I have said I like the rookies of our team. Liddi,Montero. I would like to see them get a chance to play more often. Apparently you confuse age with being a rookie and first time up in the majors.