I'm not against using multiple rookies in theory: it depends entirely on the personnel you've got and available alternatives.
Milwaukee, though, is a pretty bad example for 1 reason: of the guys you mentioned, only Fielder and Hardy got the regular job without "proving" himself in the majors first, and they didn't get those jobs in the same year. Weeks hit his way into the majors at mid-season with a .320/.435/.655 line in triple-A, and then held his own there with a .727 OPS. Braun, similarly, was called up mid-season and took off in a way we haven't really seen in years. Hart went back and forth between the majors and minors, killed the ball in the minors, then got called up as a reserve. He didn't get regular playing time until mid-August.
The Brewers didn't just hand jobs to multiple rookies at once. Hardy got the starting job at the beginning of 2005, Weeks mid-season that year, Fielder at the beginning of 2006, Hart late-2006, and Bruan late-2007.
Nobody doubts that a core of unproven players CAN be a good idea, but very few teams other than Oakland have handed multiple starting roles to rookies in the same season. Even Oakland doesn't often do it with multiple position players, and the age curve for pitchers is dramatically different.
As far as the Mariners' current personnel goes, I don't think it's a TERRIBLE idea, but it's nowhere near the team's best path towards contention in 2010.
=== Rookie Aversion Dept. ===
Spec's implied question is, "Yeah, but are GM's comfortable with the fact that their weak spots are manned by rookies?"
Most aren't. A few are. Billy Beane has so much confidence in his own talent judgment that he doesn't care whether a player is a rookie or not. Talent goes into the lineup, and if it doesn't pan out, well, his roster is fluid anyway.
Theo Epstein has plenty enough confidence in his own talent judgment to commit to rookies, but of course the Sox have such a high payroll that he's not called on to use it.
Most lineups that have 4x holes in them -- as the Bavasi/Armstrong offenses -- had those holes precisely because teams committed to veterans who turned out lousy. Had they had rookies in there, the fluidity of Stars & Scrubs would have stopped the hemorrhaging.
In a very real way, committing to three Marco Scutaros at LF, 3B, and C would be more risky than playing three talented rookies there. If the Scutaros tank, you have to suffer with them.
Batista, Silva, and Washburn felt very solid when they walked around training camp, didn't they?
I don't share the emotion that says, we have vets here, we're safe. My emotion is: the more options I have, the safer I am.
.
=== 2006-08 Brew ===
What is interesting is that the 2005-08 Brewers got good precisely by swapping out all of their aging journeymen for bright young talents.
In 2006, the Brewers were loaded with aging MLB(TM) journeymen like Brady Clark and Geoff Jenkins.
But Fielder and Weeks had just gotten there (as Franklin Gutierrez just got here) -- and in 2007 the Brewers slammed three more "rookies" into the fulltime lineup, those being Ryan Braun, J.J. Hardy* and Corey Hart.
Fielder and Weeks were 23 and 24, and Braun was a "pure" rookie. Hart had 300 AB's in the bigs over a few seasons -- but then so do Adam Moore and Michael Saunders have some AB's in the bigs. J.J. Hardy had almost a full season behind him, but he's now the 5th guy under 25.
............
We can quibble with minor differences between the 2007 M's and 2010 Mariners, but the main observation is clear. The team that Zduriencik just came from, got good precisely because they shoved "all in" on young, unproven talents.
.............
Are Saunders, Tuiasosopo and Moore that caliber of talent? That's a great debate in Seattle. Most would allow that they're as talented as Weeks, Hardy, and Hart -- the Fielder and Braun might have to come from the FA market. :- )
But if my "consolation" for playing two or three ML-ready blue chippers is that I get Lackey, Dunn, and Crawford, I'm willing to give it a whirl.
................
If the question is: "Is it too risky to play Saunders, Tui, and Moore along with an import of several ML stars?" Then the answer is no. In fact, with Saunders there is no risk whatsoever. Given that you like an Endy Chavez situation in LF, that position (and RF) would be the least-risky in your 2010 lineup.
It definitely would not be "incorrect" to play all three of them, so that you could import more talent. And GM's wouldn't tell you that it was.
If the question is: will Zduriencik prefer not to do that? Then I'm sure the answer is yes. He's already shown his hand on that one.
.
=== The Real Issue ===
... is not that Capt Jack wouldn't play 3 rookies.
When Dustin Ackley shows he can hit an ML curve ball, he's in there. Z has said as much.
If Zduriencik had three Dustin Ackleys in 2011, they'd all get slammed in there.
............
It's not that Zduriencik won't play a rookie. It's that he's not sure about these three rookies.
That's fair enough. :- )
Comments
... as a group, came up and showed the Brewers what they wanted to see. Even if they showed it over the course of a month or two each.
Still, a good month or three does not guarantee that a young player will come through. You're still making a commitment, whether or not a 23-year-old has had a good start. :- )
............
Also, let's not forget that Zduriencik was not making these calls in Milwaukee. The point is, he watched as his last team pushed a handful of early-20's players in there over a short period of time.
In general, the Brewers' young players did play well immediately. I don't doubt that Zduriencik would want to see the same.
I still think the M's should strongly consider player development as a key objective to the '10 season. I wouldn't invest in either OF or C, since I like our depth in young players at those positions. I would really like to pick-up a super-utility infielder as a stop loss for Wilson's health and Tui's development. It also won't impede Triunfel if he surprises with his development.
I'm in favor of buying my DH and 1B on the free agent market since that is where there are multiple options and we wouldn't be blocking any big bats. There were 13 1B with OPS of >0.900 last year and 7 2B, 3B, and SS total with OPS of >0.900. This is why Nick Johnson (21st best OPS for 1B) or Russell Branyan (16th best) have limited value.
Really, I think Sandy has the best low risk approach to building a team. Find out which prospects shake out in the wash and only after that process fill the confirmed holes with veterans. If you do it in reverse you might find you've blocked or traded the wrong prospect. Of all Bavasi's moves, the trade of Asdrubal Cabrera has had the longest term consequences because we are still trying to come up with a quality back-up plan for Betancourt's regression.
There were 13 1B with OPS of >0.900 last year and 7 2B, 3B, and SS total with OPS of >0.900.
That really puts it in perspective.
Not Convinced That Backup CFs Is Zduriencik's Preference
I thought both Zduriencik and Blengino took the position that defense was a way to get value in a hurry, with the implication being they were constrained last year by both time and budget into grabbing Chavez at al.
That they actually "like" light bat/good glove LF seems like an unsupported conclusion, so I'm not sure how you get to "Saunders is no risk" even in their view.
In the end, we don't know enough about Z's front office to say what kind of player they really like. This off-season will be the only real test we have.
But the Hannahan 3b, Wilson ss, Saunders lf, much less Hannahan 1b decisions have me wondering. Blengino's remark about "quick value" was profound, and explained the strange Chavez decision.
But how does it explain why they selected Jack Hannahan as their RLP third and first baseman?
Nor does it explain why they plumped for Jack Wilson at SS, given the fact that they had time for that decision. They could have bid high for Scutaro at SS, for example.
The chase of Marco Scutaro to play 3B does nothing to comfort me about their willingness to balance OPS and UZR the way I would .. of course you know they're losing sleep over that one...
.............
I agree; it's early. I hope that Blengino's offhand remark does speak to an ingrained philosophy.
I trust that you'd agree, if they shun Michael Saunders and bring in a veteran glove-first, light-bat LF, that it will indicate that Blengino's remark wasn't a mission statement.
A bunch of guys who didnt do much in their first exposure to the majors to inspire a great deal of confidence in their abilities at first in MLB. All these guys got a full time job within 1 or 2 years of falling on their faces in the show.
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
*all stats brought to you without concern for park factors, injuries, age or sample size. Cause it's a two-way street. :)
Some of those guys, notably Brett Butler with a 44 OPS+ in his 2nd year, 268 PA's ... Walker slugging .170 in his first 50-PA year, really flailed away early.