[Chaos_Effect]

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, on 22 April 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

wedge or millwood ?

Both?

[phredmojo]

Chaos_Effect, on 22 April 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Both?

yes

[MtGrizzly]

Can't fire the manager every year and a half. I don't think there is much of a difference from one manager to the next, to be honest. We've seen a revolving door of managers for what - the last decade? - and I don't see much of a difference between them. One might handle pitchers better, one might handle the kids better, one might handle the veterans better...As far as strategy? Unless we are talking about Cox or Weaver or some other HOF guy I don't think there is an advantage to be had there. Remember, Saint Pinella was infuriating with regards to how he handled the pitchers - to the point where Pat made him abdicate all pitching decisions to Price.

Wedge is somewhere in the middle, from what I can tell. He's probably a little too deferential to the veterans. OTOH, if he had better veterans that would be a good thing. Pinella was like that, too. (Can you even imagine the howls of outrage if Wedge left Felix out there for 140+ IP the way that Pinella did with Johnson?) We can second guess individual decisions but if he had yanked Millwood and Delabar had walked four guys and given up a double in an inning for the loss, we would be questioning that. The problem isn't when to yank Millwood for Delabar - the problem is having to choose when to yank Millwood for Delabar.

What would a great, HOF-level manager be able to wring out of this squad - an extra win or three over the course of the season? Bobby Cox would struggle to be .500 with this club. The manager ain't the issue. Dropping the payroll from $120ish million to $80ish million with Figgins and Ichiro taking up $30ish million of that is the issue. Can't lay that on Wedge and we can only lay the Figgins disaster on Zduriencik. The malaise that has taken over this franchise originates above their heads.

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

The manager gets the blame as does the man who hired him gmz. Wedge is infurating because while the roster is limited you're still left wandering. the m's have great team speed little power ydt you don't see the m's taken advantage of that. We don't have the bats needrd nor dp you see the dedication to try and create runs thru small ball. Then it's as though defense no lonfer matters something which used to be a strength. I really wonder what wedge brings he's not a saber guy gmz is. The only tjing he does is play the rightie leftie mu. I believe someone like joe maddon would change things here not a sub par manager like wedge.

[BatGrrl66]

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, on 22 April 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

worse and the team over performed in 2009 I'd wish this team could win that many games.

Honestly I'd be surprise if this team won 60 games.

Trust me this team is no better or worse than it has been in the last couple of years. Low 70's for wins and that is because until the ownership is changed nothing will change for this team or organization. On the otherhand you want truely bad? Just take a look at the Kansas City Royals, that ladies and gentlemen is the epitome of bad.

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

BatGrrl66, on 24 April 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

Trust me this team is no better or worse than it has been in the last couple of years. Low 70's for wins and that is because until the ownership is changed nothing will change for this team or organization. On the otherhand you want truely bad? Just take a look at the Kansas City Royals, that ladies and gentlemen is the epitome of bad.

70 wins would be the highest win total since 2009. where we won 85 games.

2010 we won 61 games
2011 we won 67 games

this team isn't winning 70 games. We're going to be lucky to get to 60 this year. This team is going to win around 50 games.

[BatGrrl66]

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, on 24 April 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

70 wins would be the highest win total since 2009. where we won 85 games.

2010 we won 61 games
2011 we won 67 games

this team isn't winning 70 games. We're going to be lucky to get to 60 this year. This team is going to win around 50 games.

Nah, I have seen enough games out of them. They are young and have spike potential so 70ish is reasonable. 60 is Kansas City territory, 50 is ridiculous, the team is going to Las Vegas territory as the new owership group takes over and promises to keep the team in Seattle.

This post has been edited by BatGrrl66: 24 April 2012 - 10:03 AM

[Vidya]

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, on 24 April 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

70 wins would be the highest win total since 2009. where we won 85 games.

2010 we won 61 games
2011 we won 67 games

this team isn't winning 70 games. We're going to be lucky to get to 60 this year. This team is going to win around 50 games.

Go for it! If you're going to be negative, why not be historically negative?

In 1978, the second year of their existence, the Mariners lost 104 games. That's the most games they've lost in any season. In their first year they only lost 98 games. In 1980, they lost 103 games. In 1983 they lost 102 games. In more recent memory the Mariners lost 101 games in 2008 and 2010. That's it. In their other 30 years of existence the Mariners have failed to lose 100 games. So if the Mariners even approach 110 losses, and a 50 win season equates to 112 losses, then they would blow the bottom off the record for patheticness set in 1978.

Why not? They did set the bar pretty high, I mean low, when they lost the perfect game to the White Sox. I believe the MLB record is about 120 losses, so if we're going to be bad, why not go for the all-time MLB record? ESPN would love it, and we would get national coverage the last week of the season.

[Vidya]

BatGrrl66, on 24 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Nah, I have seen enough games out of them. They are young and have spike potential so 70ish is reasonable. 60 is Kansas City territory, 50 is ridiculous, the team is going to Las Vegas territory as the new owership group takes over and promises to keep the team in Seattle.

Before the season began, I believed the Mariners greatest rival in the AL standings would be the Indians. After only winning one game at home to the Indians and White Sox, I have lowered my expectations. Now I believe the Royals are our closest competitor in the bottom half of the AL.

The sad thing about the Royals is the last year they had a winning season was 1993. Royal fans born in that year are eligible to vote. So far this year the Royals have failed to win a home game in 10 tries. At 3 - 13, the Royals are on pace this season to lose 132 games and blow the bottom completely off the MLB record for losses.

The really sad thing is that Mariner fans are complaining about a 7 - 10 record. BTW, the Royals haven't lost 100 games in a season since 2006, and they're not going to lose that many games this year.

This post has been edited by Vidya: 24 April 2012 - 10:36 AM

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

BatGrrl66, on 24 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Nah, I have seen enough games out of them. They are young and have spike potential so 70ish is reasonable. 60 is Kansas City territory, 50 is ridiculous, the team is going to Las Vegas territory as the new owership group takes over and promises to keep the team in Seattle.

Kanas City actually has a better line up then us. While they don't have the front of the rotation pitching like we do they're line up is better than ours. They're going through a rough patch right now but after this road trip we're going to be right there with them. The only reason we've got a better record than them is because we've been fortunate to play the A's twice to start the season.

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Vidya, on 24 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Go for it! If you're going to be negative, why not be historically negative?

In 1978, the second year of their existence, the Mariners lost 104 games. That's the most games they've lost in any season. In their first year they only lost 98 games. In 1980, they lost 103 games. In 1983 they lost 102 games. In more recent memory the Mariners lost 101 games in 2008 and 2010. That's it. In their other 30 years of existence the Mariners have failed to lose 100 games. So if the Mariners even approach 110 losses, and a 50 win season equates to 112 losses, then they would blow the bottom off the record for patheticness set in 1978.

Why not? They did set the bar pretty high, I mean low, when they lost the perfect game to the White Sox. I believe the MLB record is about 120 losses, so if we're going to be bad, why not go for the all-time MLB record? ESPN would love it, and we would get national coverage the last week of the season.

I'm not so sure as though why us winning 50 games is such an unrealistic idea. In 2010 when Wak was fired the M's were on pace to lost 110 games that year. Things were so bad for this club that they eventually ended up trading to get Branyan back. Last year this team we saw our longest losing streak in franchsie history at 17 games. The only reason then we didn't lose more games we because of that historic stretch of pitching we got from our starters. A stretch where any other team in baseball would of had a winning record but the M's of course only went .500. Now our Rotation last year compared to this year isn't as strong nor is the BP and the offense is continuing to get worse and worse.

What I mean by worse and worse is that we're filling the offense with more & more question marks as we're bringing up the kids. We don't know what to expect from them and they may or may not live up to the hype.

here's a pretty good article by geoff that more or less sums up how I feel with some numbers from the past 4 years to kinda back up what I'm saying.
\
http://seattletimes....syndication=rss

This post has been edited by AlMoStLeGeNdArY: 24 April 2012 - 11:12 AM

[BatGrrl66]

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, on 24 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Kanas City actually has a better line up then us. While they don't have the front of the rotation pitching like we do they're line up is better than ours. They're going through a rough patch right now but after this road trip we're going to be right there with them. The only reason we've got a better record than them is because we've been fortunate to play the A's twice to start the season.

Believe me I get to watch them every night and without pitching you are sunk. Hence the Royals are in a far worse position than the Mariners. Their division is top to bottom stronger than the AL West so the Mariners will end the year right around 72 wins like I predicted weeks ago. The Royals more likely are on pace for close to 100 or slightly more loses.

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

BatGrrl66, on 24 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Believe me I get to watch them every night and without pitching you are sunk. Hence the Royals are in a far worse position than the Mariners. Their division is top to bottom stronger than the AL West so the Mariners will end the year right around 72 wins like I predicted weeks ago. The Royals more likely are on pace for close to 100 or slightly more loses.

It's the offense there are going to be nights where the offense wins you games despite your pitching throwing a stinker like the way the Indians beat us the other day. Throughout the course of a 162 game season it's better to have offense to fall back on then to depend on your pitching night in and night in. Even though our pitching staff is better it's not as though it's better by leaps and bounds. We only get the nod over them because of Felix. With out him our staff would be the same if not worse than theres.

Actually looking at the numbers our staff's ERA right now is 4.17 compared to that 4.64 of KC. So it's not as though we have this great advantage over them even with Felix. Last year the staff was a lot better but that's just because they pitched extremely good until Fister and Bedard got traded. Now the next question for us is how long are we going to wait for Noesi/Millwood to straight out ? Do we just cut Millwood and move Noesi to the pen and have ER and Iwakuma start for us ?

[BatGrrl66]

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, on 24 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

It's the offense there are going to be nights where the offense wins you games despite your pitching throwing a stinker like the way the Indians beat us the other day. Throughout the course of a 162 game season it's better to have offense to fall back on then to depend on your pitching night in and night in. Even though our pitching staff is better it's not as though it's better by leaps and bounds. We only get the nod over them because of Felix. With out him our staff would be the same if not worse than theres.

Actually looking at the numbers our staff's ERA right now is 4.17 compared to that 4.64 of KC. So it's not as though we have this great advantage over them even with Felix. Last year the staff was a lot better but that's just because they pitched extremely good until Fister and Bedard got traded. Now the next question for us is how long are we going to wait for Noesi/Millwood to straight out ? Do we just cut Millwood and move Noesi to the pen and have ER and Iwakuma start for us ?

Just remember that KC is doing somehing right now that I don't believe the Mariners will do all season. Be in a losing streak of 10+ games. And for the Royals there is no end in sight, it's a bad team, very bad.

[Vidya]

AlMoStLeGeNdArY, on 24 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

I'm not so sure as though why us winning 50 games is such an unrealistic idea. In 2010 when Wak was fired the M's were on pace to lost 110 games that year. Things were so bad for this club that they eventually ended up trading to get Branyan back. Last year this team we saw our longest losing streak in franchsie history at 17 games. The only reason then we didn't lose more games we because of that historic stretch of pitching we got from our starters. A stretch where any other team in baseball would of had a winning record but the M's of course only went .500. Now our Rotation last year compared to this year isn't as strong nor is the BP and the offense is continuing to get worse and worse.

What I mean by worse and worse is that we're filling the offense with more & more question marks as we're bringing up the kids. We don't know what to expect from them and they may or may not live up to the hype.

here's a pretty good article by geoff that more or less sums up how I feel with some numbers from the past 4 years to kinda back up what I'm saying.
\
http://seattletimes....syndication=rss

Last year the Mariners finished 30th in MLB in Ave, OBP, SLS, and OPS. This year they are averaging 26th in those categories. In comparison to the rest of MLB they've improved in HR's over their other stats. Their K/BB rate has not improved from last year, and you might expect that from this group of players. About the only are that is worse from last year is SB/CS. Team ERA has fallen slightly from last year relative to the other MLB teams, but it's really too early to make much of that. One thing is certain, these are not the numbers of a 110 loss team.

There have been 15 teams in the last 10 years who have lost 100 or more games. To find a team that has lost 110 games you would have to go back to 2004 when the D-Backs lost 111 games. In 2003 the Tigers lost 119 games and barely avoided the record set by the expansion Mets. After checking the stats for the 110+ game losing teams I found it hard to learn why they lost so many games. Probably the best way to predict such a thing would e to check runs scored and runs allowed numbers.

In 2011 the Mariners started out even slower than this year's team, and a case could have been made early that it was a 110 loss team, but after a road trip to Detroit and Boston, the team was on it's way to .500 and even passed the .500 mark in May. It wasn't until the 17 game losing streak around the ASB that the team fell out of hope for a .500 season. The worst case scenario for the 2012 Mariners is what we saw in 2011. If the team goes on another one of those two week plus losing streaks, then another 90 plus losing season will very likely happen. If Wedge can prevent that from happening this year then he will have done a good job.