9999

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I heard, the Mariners weren't budging on their "slot" $1.5M offer to Fields; Team Boras protests that they advised everyone, clearly, before the draft, that it would take $2M. The difference in money isn't important to the Mariners. The slotting structure IS important to ML teams, and the Mariners have always been among the biggest backers of this structure. If they let Fields go, they get a #22 overall as the comp pick -- which, at that point, will be losing very little, since Fields' "developmental" advantage (over a 2009 draftee) won't have been spent developing much. Here's one where I sympathize with the M's. However, this particular roster is in acute need of dominating relievers... ...................... According to the mlb.com draft tracker -- which, after all, relays the opinions of ML scouts -- Fields is blessed with a "plus, plus curve, a true hammer that he throws in the 78-80 mph range. It's tight and falls right off the table." With a 92-94 fastball and an aggressive mindset, the idea would obvious: Bank the Tom Gordon scenario with your late 1st-rounder. But if the FB were 95+, as advertised, you'd be talking about the potential for an overwhelming short man. . === Compile === 1. If Fields actually were to turn out to be Tom Gordon, he would become one of the ten best players out of the 1st round, easily. Go look up some drafts from past seasons. Stick Gordon in there and see where he ranks. ................... 2. There isn't any particular reason that Fields shouldn't turn out to be Gordon. It's not asking much, for a guy to throw two pitches for strikes in a mopup 9th inning. Closing is a sham anyway. It's the easiest job, for the glory received, in sports. Why wouldn't Fields become Gordon? Anyway, somebody with more initiative than me can go look up (1) 1st-round (2) college (3) relievers who had (4) true "signature weapons" and (5) Fields-like CMDs in big conf's and (6) run the ratios for us. Please. :- ) .................... 3. He's a college pitcher, throwing relief, so the injury risk is pretty minimal. You see how the odds stack. ................... 4. It wouldn't surprise me if his timetable (in another org) were, um, *this* year. That's generically speaking, not knowing anything about Fields. Hey, if guys like Verlander and Lincecum and Weaver can join ML rotations at the rates they did, to say nothing of Brandon Morrow, why talk two years for a college short man? .............. 5. I'm sympathetic to the idea that you can develop relief arms, but finding one with a TRUE PLUS-PLUS pitch -- if Fields has that -- is not nearly such a walk in the park. Sure, you can develop guys who can pitch effectively, 7k, 3bb, 3.00 ERA's, that kind of thing. But a reliever with a Tom Gordon curve, and a crisp fastball, is going to blow people away. Don't pooh-pooh the idea of a true dominating short man. ................ 6. You gotta like the fact that the Braves took him high. Even after a lousy year. ................. 7. Emotionally, I don't like the idea of a reliever with a 1st-rounder any more than you. Let's hope that it DOES push the Committee into the thought, "Well, if we put Morrow in there, we've got some options real soon anyway." .................... 8. After the draft, we found out that Fields was reported to throw 95, even upper 90's, at which point you're talking about a great shot at one of the six or eight most impactful ML'ers out of that draft. .................. Bear in mind that after the first 10-15 picks in the draft, you're looking at ... what ... 1 in 6, 1 in 8 chances of ML impact. (We looked at the #3 slot a few years ago, and chances THERE are significantly < 50% of ML impact.) So here's to laying up in front of the green. Cheers, Dr D