Last night, on TSN, I was asked if the JA Happ for Saunders trade was a good deal, or, considering that Happ was one of the Jays’ most dependable pitchers going down the stretch in the second half of last season, if the Jays didn’t give away too much with him. Rationale: because pitching is always so valuable for ever, and ever, and ever…
For the most part I would agree with that statement, pitching = valuable. Except when it’s not the most valuable thing—and what defines as most valuable changes. The Jays weren’t going to get the most out of Happ this season, not for the money, and they needed to give Sanchez and Norris their chances.
The Jays needed an everyday outfielder and at a nice price. They found it with Saunders. Good OPS, good power. Not so good health.
That will be a factor. Don’t expect him to be on the field all the time. Either he is going to get hurt, or the Jays are going to platoon him for fear of him getting hurt. He’ll play fewer games than a regular outfielder, even if he does stay healthy all year, That’s practically guaranteed.
The Jays also lowered costs moving Happ. In fact, if you look at the reaction from the Mariners, there is a lot of head slapping because the M’s moved a potential everyday player for a backend starter that costs more but projects fewer wins. The Steamer projections noted that adding Happ made the Mariners’ payroll go up by about six million while wins went down by about two. Annnnnd, Happ is due to jockey for more money sooner than Saunders is.
But, of all the parks that Happ could go to, Safeco was one of the best options for him. He’ll be more valuable per dollar spent in that park than he will be in just about any other, besides San Diego or thick-coastal-sea-air San Fran. His pop-up rates and fly ball rates work out nicely at Safeco—a hell of a lot nicer than they do in the AL East with parks like Yankee Stadium, Fenway, Camden and the Rogers funhouse. The park is a major factor here.
But another factor is that, Saunders and the Mariners GM did not like each other much. At least not that I’ve heard or can deduce from the comments pertaining to one another. Most notable is this roundabout accusation of laziness from Jack Zduriencik publicly: “I think that’s been the issue, not only this year but in years gone by so, the challenge for Michael is to prepare himself to be able to play a complete season. Now, some injuries are freak injuries—other injuries are injuries that are, you know, could they have been prevented and I think that’s something for Michael to answer. But he’s a talented player, he’s a very, very nice young man and, do I hope Michael’s a part of this thing? Of course I do. But it’s up to Michael to put himself in a position where he can play through the course of a full season.”
That’s just a dumb, dumb thing to say into the echo chamber of sports media. It’s like saying that Saunders could be healthy if he just tried harder to be healthy. Like, if he sat down and studied his healthiness textbook more and got his grades up, we’d all benefit—but, you know that’s his choice.
But I won’t blow that topic up more than the Mariners fan/blog base already has. They love Saunders, which is why it’s so dumb to make hazy accusation like that.
I’ll just make three points. First, this sounds an awful lot like the accusations the Jays had about Adam Lind being lazy, and that laziness being the reason he retrograded, and his retrograde the reason fans should hate him… Lazy, rich, SOB.
Buried in accusations like Zduriencik’s are usually deeper, in house issues that don’t get bluntly talked about outside house. At least that’s how the media takes it. When you say that it’s up to a guy to put himself in a better position to be healthy, it insinuates a hell of a lot. Is he lazy? Is he fat? Is he drinking or doing drugs or something else that’s ravaging his body? How can one better prepare himself by making a better decision? Obviously he’s in good shape, so, what is it? What evil, nefarious thing is he doing?
If you’re a GM, you don’t chew a guy out by giving the media a gray-haze accusation to run with. They’re going to go directly to Saunders afterwards and ask him what Zduriencik means. That’s as about an under bus comment as you can make without actually giving the make and model of the bus.
Which leads to point two: Either hit the player with the bus, or don’t bring it up at all.
Adam Lind did get fat. But his weight and his injuries may not have been directly related. Did he need to get back into shape and work harder. There was money on the table in his future. It was a career crossroads moment. Right now we say that calling him fat worked because he improved after that scandal came and passed. But there are lots of chubby players that perform well and no one tells them to clean it up. It’s risky. Don’t risk pissing a player off if you can’t play out to consequences.
Injury can often be a nice foothold for criticisms that do not directly pertain to injury. Injury in the face of high expectation is even worse. People want to hate you when you’re hurt because you’re making lots of money to do nothing and people resent that. Even other players, who would be in the same situation if hurt, resent that. Hell, players resent themselves when they’re hurt! Athletes are supposed to be gladiators, impervious to injury. If you, as a GM, say your player is not making the choice to be healthy, well, heck, we might as well blindfold the guy and execute him now for being a traitor to our dreams.
Keep those comments in their lock box. That stuff must stay under control, unless you have a plan in motion. You don’t really want Saunders to be part of it if you’re going to imply what Zduriencik did. Wanting Saunders to be a part of something becomes a pat, if-statement by that point. And tough love is not what you’re doing. Pissing off your player and starting a fight you don’t know you can resolve—since you can’t predict or control injuries—is a bad battle plan full of unnecessary risk. Most likely, you’ll piss your player off, and end up trading him for cheap because the atmosphere gets bad, you don’t trust him, understand his struggles, and don’t want to. It says a lot about the character of the GM…
Which brings us back to something I touched on earlier this week—the poor way in which baseball resolves its conflicts. From GM to player beefs, to bean balls and pride and ego. NONE of it has any real benefit to anyone, but makes players feel good, dominant, in control, powerful. Translated, it’s all immature and often unethical, and usually fruitless.
But the powerful in baseball, including some GM’s and high ranking officials, don’t go through exhaustive PR training or executive training or conflict resolution training. Baseball people are, mostly, baseball people. Sports people. Kill or be killed, people. Tough it out, people. It’s a different mentality. Winning requires it. Managing people does not—it requires as sensitive, discerning hand, otherwise you create more problems than you fix, and will more often than not trade human resources at a loss.
—
Author’s Note: Clicking on an ad on my site helps keep content coming. If you find my content entertaining, please click an ad, and/or share the story. It helps me out a lot. Thank you, and thanks for reading!