No.

This is not a counter to Matt's fine post.  The M's have surely been terrific this month; and pretty unlucky to only be 15-7. 

While we keep our hopeful and watchful eyes toward the future stars, like Snelling and Choo and Jones, we post away at what idiots the committee must be to hold on to Guardado and Everett.  Meanwhile, the M's offense purrs along sequentially in a manner making us fondly remember the pressure the '01 M's used daily while burning through baseball in '01.

What Has Everett Brought to the M's?

.244-.321.-.384

Not a lot….right?  Carl Everett is certainly not to be confused with a great hitter.  But, one thing he is is a 'proven major leaguer'.  We scoff at this notion from behind our computer screens, most of us not having a clue of what a major league clubhouse is all about.  A major league clubhouse has 'proven major leaguers' in it, to some degree or another.  Those that are not proving it are up finding out what it takes to prove it.  

Sabermetricians study and argue about relative values of complex calculated stats in an attempt to more accurately study and describe this game.  It's a practice I find much value in.  I have yet to find a good study (though I've admittedly not looked as hard as those more immersed in the subject) that accurately describes several other factors:

• Context
• Effects of one player's performance on another (I know you can run numbers to potentially find correlation…but can you prove causation?)
• The 'when' of performance as opposed to the what.

Hits With Meaning

Putting raw numbers into park-independant and team-independant metrics gives us plenty of data in terms of who the best performing hitters are.  I am not going to argue that stockpiling the best hitters you can isn't a good idea.  Of course it is. 

But baseball to me has always been about a lot more than numbers, even though, like most of the blog-o-sphere's readers, the numbers are fascinating and eye-opening.

But if the numbers don't do justice to what your eyes tell you, it's worth questioning whether the numbers are giving you a complete picture.  What I see when I watch Everett come up in an important situation is a hitter that goes up there with a plan.  It doesn't always get executed, but he's normally not flailing away and swinging at the pitchers' pitch.  

He's won several games with clutch hits and kept several rallies alive with clutch hits.  That stuff affects the clubhouse.  If you dump him now, what message does it send?  Especially after his clutch rally-starter the other night in LA.  That was the type of hit that can help change a season.  So while his numbers on not anywhere near what I'd like to see from a DH, my eyes have told me that he has been a fairly key part of the M's success.

The Key Question (As Usual):

Can the M's win their next pennant with this player?  With Everett, I guess that depends.  On context, of course.  The M's first and foremost need, as I see it, is the upgrade the rotation.  Without that, Everett is a moot point.  If the rotation is upgraded, this lineup certainly can win with Everett at DH.  Is he the optimal solution?  No.  Is he without value?  Absolutely not.

So Does Padna Want to Keep Everett?

For the record, no.  I'm not high on Carl Everett.  I do think he's in the way of some developing players for long-term success, like Snelling and Choo.  But, we have no real way of knowing whether they are ready.  We know Snelling is ready, skills-wise, but is he ready physically?  Are the M's believing they're going to make a run this year?  If they are, then what does it tell the team when they are willing to let a proven guy go in favor of a player that is not proven?  This is a part of the equation that seems clear to us at our keyboards, but it is absent the human element.  That's a huge part of Bavasi's job.

These guys are still not robots, no matter how much we like to think so. 

Carl Everett may be doing exactly what he was hired to do.  And though the numbers don't say it, my eyes tell me he's helped them win games.

It's a harder decision than most think.  I sincerely believe that dumping him now, while the M's are climbing into the race, while he has been a part of the climb (with his key hits), could be detrimental to the clubhouse and the team.  If you can dump him for an obvious upgrade with a proven player, that's one thing.  Dumping him for an unproven rookie, no matter how good the rookie may be next year or two years from now, in the midst of what the players perceive is a pennant race could be the recipe for disaster.  It could also be the recipe for winning the west.  I'm not arguing that the M's shouldn't make the move.

So where Padna dissents is not from the idea that we can upgrade the DH position and remove Everett.  Of course we can.  I just don't buy that it is the slam-dunk that most make it out to be.  There is plenty of risk here.  I would rather have them do something with Everett and get Snelling in there.  But the opposing position has merit.  I dissent with the popular notion that gettng Everett out of the mix is a no-brainer.