[ed - Since I was travelling this week, this is coming out on Wednesday morning instead of Tuesday afternoon.  We'll be back to Tuesdays next week.]

Last week, Bill Bavasi was relieved of his duties, and so the obvious question was:

If you were offered the Mariners' GM job, what specific steps would you attempt to take between now and the trading deadline?

Things have been moving pretty quickly in Seattle since Bavasi's departure, and it appears things will continue to be shaken up.  Here's what some Baseball Digest Daily writers have to say:

Geoff Young:

First thing I would do is invent a time machine, get in it, and tell my predecessor not to sign Richie Sexson, Carlos Silva, Miguel Batista, and Jarrod Washburn, and not to trade for Erik Bedard. Of course, I would then create a paradox and probably wipe our planet out of existence. Then again, that might actually be an improvement for the Mariners.

On a less facetious note, I'm not sure there's a lot I could do right now. The most marketable guy who isn't The Franchise is probably a 36-year-old left fielder, and I don't see teams tripping all over themselves to get Raul Ibanez. Getting Jeff Clement into games would seem to be a priority. Maybe run Jeremy Reed out there a little more often, see if he's finally figured out what to do with big-league pitching. I would jettison Vidro -- a DH who can't slug .350 serves no purpose. I would come up with a plan for Brandon Morrow and stick with it.

I would... actually, you said "offered." On second thought, I'd respectfully decline and wait for a better opportunity.

Gordon Berger:

I guess I just got hired, since they just fired their GM.  I would play for next season.  We have the worst record in the majors, so it's time to look to the future.  This season's a loss, so now let's try to mitigate, trim the fat and build for the future.

I'd dump high-priced, underperforming veterans, like Richie Sexon.  I would seek to acquire a package of prospects for the veterans (much in the same way that the Orioles did in trading Erik Bedard to the M's).  Adam was the M's top-rated prospect.  According to Baseball America, the best M's prospect is Jeff Clement, who they ranked at number 42. However, the next best ranked prospect is Carlos Triunfel at number 62.

I'd fire the manager if I felt that he was not motivating or getting the most out of the players, but the M's already did that, so I had the hindsight with that one.

Rob McQuown:

I've thought about this a lot, since Bavasi was canned.  I'd always been somewhat more supportive of him than many in the blogosphere, which probably meant that his moves didn't make me puke, and I wouldn't call him all sorts of insulting names.  As I posted as a follow-up comment on the news blurb about Bavasi's firing, I would view the GM job has having two "stages": the "horse trading" stage, and the "stability and growth" stage.

Regardless of whether I was in "horse trading" or "stability and growth" mode, I would do some obvious things immediately: Get Clement back into the lineup (done), get Wladimir Balentin back in the lineup (moving Ibanez to 1b), keep Ichiro in CF, but get him some rest days (1/wk), reduce Felix's workload.

For the "horse trading" stage stage, I would do the following:

A. Start at a spot most people wouldn't - Yuniesky Betancourt.  I'd have a scout and (statistical) analyst go over every single ball hit anywhere near him the past two years, and determine to the best of my ability whether he is really a good defensive shortstop or not.  To date, he's been much like Jeter - people who see him play consider him to be not just a "good" defensive shortstop, but a "GREAT" defensive shortstop.  Yet, every defensive metric paints him as being ineffective, allowing more balls to go past him than an average defender at the position.  Since Bedard and Felix both have good BABIP's, it's possible that the perceived defensive woes of the M's (and YuBet) are due largely to the ineffectiveness of the other SP.

B. "Bribe" other teams to take Sexson, Vidro, Silva, Bautista, and Washburn off my hands.  These players all have done things which can be spun properly by a good "salesman", and other teams could certainly be convinced that they could use them - the amounts that they are overpaid would have to be considered an asset the M's would be receiving in return for them, and maybe even prospects and/or money would need to be sent along with these players to get them off the roster, but off they must go.

C. Ichiro has been vocal about wanting to play for a winner.  Investigate options to trade him, though it's certain to be all but impossible.

D. Shop Putz and Ibanez aggressively. These are two team roles that a bad team entering a rebuilding phase doesn't need to invest in.

E. See what some of the mediocre pitchers in AAA can do as starting pitchers - R.A. Dickey (done), Ryan Feierabend, Jake Woods, etc.  

F. Bedard has a career ERA of 3.84.  Work with his agent to get an extension in place that pays him for that level of performance.  If it's not possible (I'm sure his agent will start out by insisting on something closer to the value of a 3.16-ERA pitcher, as Bedard was in 2007), shop him aggressively.  An arm of that quality could really help a playoff team, and all the borderline playoff teams are at least talking about acquiring another arm.

G. Unless the team is sure that he cannot handle starting, get Morrow back into the role of a starting pitcher, ala Joba Chamberlain.

"Stability and Growth"

Making the moves above leaves the team with a core of:

C: Johjima and Clement
1b: (void)
2b: Lopez
3b: Beltre
ss: Betancourt (assuming he passes the scrutiny described above)
lf: Reed (probably needs a RH platoon-mate)
cf: Ichiro
rf: Balentien
dh: Clement and (void)

For those two "voids", the M's really need some offensive firepower.  Ibanez wasn't too bad, but the M's need someone with more of their value in the future, not the past.  Fortunately, their talent pipeline isn't empty, and star prospect Michael Saunders looks almost ready.  From a financial perspective, leaving him in AAA until September callups probably makes sense, but it would be surprising if he's not able to take a side OF spot (or even CF, bumping Ichiro?) out of spring training next year.  LaHair isn't much of a prospect, but has always oozed power... he should be given a full-time MLB job the rest of 2008, to see if there's anything there.  Vic Diaz and Charlton Jimerson can fill in the rest of the "voids", along with any advanced talent the M's get in trades.

There's a deep problem with the offense, though.  Starting with Ichiro, there are at least 5 key players who don't walk nearly as much as you'd like.  That means that when Johjima is hitting .229 like this year, or when Lopez hit .252 in 2007, they are incredible burdens to an offense.  For this team to really have a chance to compete, that "void" at 1b is going to need to be filled with an upper-echelon offensive player.  Such guys are - obviously - almost impossible to find.  Mark Teixeira wouldn't be a bad fit at all, and he's a free agent after this season.

SP: Felix, Bedard, Morrow

This trio has a chance to be among the best in the game.  Finding two more almost-league-average SP really isn't as hard (or expensive) as most teams make it out to be.  Maybe Feierabend can be one of these?  Maybe even Jake Woods?  The M's need to add at least one very-high-quality young arm in their trades.

RP: Ryan Rowland-Smith, Sean Green, Mark Lowe, etc.

Rebuilding teams shouldn't be worried about who's in their bullpen, and if Putz is traded, and Morrow moved to SP role, the pen can be used for auditions.

Roundtable discussions are back, and slated to appear every week!!

 

This week's question regards prospect evaluation.  The Digest writing team was posed the following question this past week, on the heels of the First-year player draft: 

How do you determine when to "give up" on a prospect, and should MLB teams be quicker or slower about trying to trade away players picked early in the draft who appear to be on a downward trend?



There were a variety of replies, from Eric SanInocencio, Gordon Berger, Jonathan Hale, Paul Bugala, Tyler Maas, and guest contributor Dean Carrasco.

Enjoy the varied opinions below, and feel free to comment.  The “Tuesday Afternoon Chatter” discussions will be featured every week, and suggestions for future topics of discussion are also welcome.

Eric:

This question is hard to determine, because each individual prospect has a huge hand in determining when the "end" of their status approaches. Many factors including playing background, service time and future position come into play when making this assessment. However, in attempts to answer your question, I'll give you a quick synopsis of when that end of the rope may be.
 
In terms of high school draftees, I think extra leeway has to be given in terms of where their development is. Depending on what area of the country and program they played in, it seems that at least five years of control should be mandatory. If they enter the organization at 17 or 18 years of age, you'd have to let them physically mature before you can know what type of player they will become. With the 40-man roster requirements in place, the actual time they have is often dictated within that six year period. This is the right amount to me, and gives a good idea of the close to final product the "prospect" has become.
 
College draftees are another issue, due to the advanced stage of their career in terms of prospect status. The best college "prospects" should often breeze through the minor league system, while the solid but not spectacular players making noise within the first two to three years after they are selected. In terms of time, these picks' futures should be well known by their 24th or 25th birthday. That shortens their timetable to two or three seasons, depending on age when drafted. What I'm saying is that by age 25 they either need to be on the cusp of the big leagues, or firmly entrenched there already.

Gordon:

You waive your wand and hope for the best.  Seriously, you consult your crystal ball.  No, it really depends.  Character issues have been always been the biggest question mark in investing in prospects. A case in point is Josh Hamilton.  A scout with the Rays was quoted at the time Hamilton was drafted as saying that they chose Hamilton over pitcher Josh Beckett because of "character issues".  Clearly, you can see how that turned out for the Rays.

In my experience, a lot of the decision-making comes down to after the draft, the player is signed and he has reported to his minor league club.  For example, several years ago I represented a mid-round draft choice who had signed with the Toronto Blue Jays out of high school.  The Jays assigned him to low Class A. The player was 18 years old. He kept getting in trouble with the team by missing curfew.  It turns out that he was a bit undisciplined and fancied staying out late with the local girls.  The Jays got tired of his behavior and suspended him a month into his career.  He never played for them again.

There are other instances where teams give up on prospects, such as when they have a logjam at a position that he plays and where the player cannot be groomed to play another position.  This is not necessary a logjam at the major league level; it may be at AAA or AA levels as well.  If the player does not immediately perform as expected of a high-level pick, the team may use him to trade for another need.

Sometimes prospects seem as if they don't fit in with the chemistry on their team or with the club's philosophy, so they are shipped out for a change of scenery.

Of course, if a prospect cannot progress up the ladder and advance to higher level of competition, then it's time to cut ties.

Jonathan:

I think it's very hard for people who aren't involved day-to-day with a prospect to know when the right time is to give up on him. Sure we can track his stats at every level, but who really knows what's holding his tools back, or how likely that is to change. Maybe a player who has been incredibly disappointing just needs to learn how to hit a curveball and is showing signs of improvement that haven't translated into numbers quite yet, while another has a huge hole in his swing and doesn't listen- but for the time being is destroying mistake fastballs that aren't going to exist in the big leagues. Predicting the future of a player who is not fully developed well takes a lot more than dissecting their peripherals.

In general though, I think giving up on players with good tools should be done very rarely (unless the team has a specific reason, such as picking up someone VIA trade for a playoff run or swapping a player for a that  major league club). Very rarely does a team get good value for a faded prospect, instead they end up selling low out of embarrassment and disappointment, a low-reward, high-risk venture. Without some sort of inside clubhouse information, if the team has put this much time and effort in, I think usually they may as well ride a prospect out and hope he's a late-bloomer instead of panicking, and giving in to the urge to get something, anything, for a player whose value has plummeted.

Paul:

The current economics of baseball mean that the approach to prospects varies from team to team. For example, a team like the Red Sox could more seriously consider trading prospects than a lower-revenue team. Because of its access to the free agent and international markets, Boston is less dependent on the draft and player development than lower-revenue teams.

However, a team like the Indians is more likely to be the buyer in a declining prospect trade (see Marte, Andy) or to hold onto prospects whom appear to be on a downward trend (see Crowe, Trevor; Miller, Adam; Goleski, Ryan). This tendency is probably stronger in Cleveland these days seeing how Brandon Phillips would look pretty nice at second base right about now.

More often than not, it takes the patience and dedication of an entire organization to turn a top draft pick into a productive major leaguer. Those who fall short far out number the successes. Some teams simply can expose themselves to the risk of trading a prospect too soon more often than others.

However, there's a lot to be said for organizational players who create an environment of professionalism and hustle on the farm. So, organizations that are committed to player development aren't only looking for front-line starters and middle of the order bats. For every player who makes it to the show there are dozens of organizational players who helped to get him there.

Tyler:

In a modern era that finds the MLB draft being aired on basic cable, the Internet fluttering with insight to virtually any kid who's ever stepped out on the field with any proficiency, and minor leaguers flying through the ranks at record speed, prospects are held to a higher expectation than ever before. But should all the scouting and expectations result in a scuffling prospect at the big league level, when is the right time to cut ties with the highly-touted prospect your organization once planned its future around?

Though the occurrence of a player failing to meet expectations is a familiar one, there are multiple factors that could lead to a team's rightful unloading.

Milwaukee second baseman Rickie Weeks seems to fit the criteria of a revered draftee who's failed to meet the possibly unattainable expectations placed upon him when he was taken second overall by the club in the 2003 draft. Once he reached the peak that countless fans and front office-types had anticipated since draft day, Rickie showed he was not the 30-30 bat so many were banking on, but was oft-injured and, furthermore, a liability in the field.

Three full seasons later, Weeks has yet to play a full season. He hasn't registered more than 16 homeruns or 42 RBI in a season and is presently shelved on the disabled list. If the Brewers were to try and trade him, they wouldn't get much in return; if they released him or benched him, they'd be shouldered with rushing another middle infield prospect to a post they're not yet ready to man, so they sit on him at second base and merely hope for flashes of the player they thought they drafted.

In retrospect, maybe the Brewers should have sold high on Weeks, but it was impossible to know whether his ceiling was even higher than anticipated. It never is. That's why Homer Bailey is floating in and out of Reds rotation (and Major League roster) and not underachieving for a 2007 contender. That's why Josh Hamilton and Elijah Dukes had to completely torch bridges in Tampa with their off the field behavior before they were finally sent packing.

In looking back on a team's handling of a star that never was, it's usually a would-of, could-of sort of thing, but at the time it's difficult to ship away a player you've piled years of hope, planning and expectation into and even harder to watch him finally play like the star he is for another team.

Dean:

I think bailing out early on a draft pick is generally not going to be a good gamble.  There is more risk than reward to it. 

The risk is that even if a player looks for all the world like a "flop" in his early career, he can easily turn it around on you.  A newly drafted player is obviously competing against a higher level of baseball competition, but there is a lot more to it than that.  Many of these guys have never lived away from home before, much less lived the hotel/motel lifestyle as they tour the backwoods of the country on an old bus.  And as a multimillion-dollar contract beckons, the pressure ratchets up.  If a very young adult isn't mature enough to handle all of this stuff perfectly right away... well, that's pretty normal.  But he often can, given time.  And even if the problem is strictly on the field -- the player doesn't recognize the breaking ball well, can't pitch a ball anywhere near the plate, etc. -- when we're talking about kids who are so young and so athletically gifted, there is still a good possibility that they will be able to pick up what they have to pick up.

And, what reward is there going to be if your worst suspicion is right, the youngster who is struggling is only going to get worse, and you do successfully pawn him off on some sucker?  You're still not going to get much for him.  Given that most folks in baseball management -- and with reason -- value a veteran highly, and see a guy in the low minors as the equivalent of a lottery ticket... you are going to get about as much for a floundering recent draftee, as you would get in exchange for a losing lottery ticket. 

So, I think there is much more to be gained than there is to be lost by being patient with your recent draft picks.