| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 12-11-2012 |
With the three-team deal consummated Tuesday night between the Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds and Arizona Diamondbacks, the Seattle Mariners could feel some of the backlash. Before we get to that, lets take a look at the trade in its entirety.
Cleveland Indians Receive:
RHP Trevor Bauer
RHP Matt Albers
RHP Bryan Shaw
CF Drew Stubbs
In Exchange For:
OF Shin-Soo Choo
IF Jason Donald
LHP Tony Sipp
1B Lars Anderson
$3.5 million
Cincinnati Reds Receive:
OF Shin-soo Choo
IF Jason Donald
$3.5 million
In Exchange For:
CF Drew Stubbs
SS Didi Gregorius
Arizona Diamondbacks Receive:
SS Did Gregorius
1B Lars Anderson
LHP Tony Sipp
In Exchange For:
RHP Trevor Bauer
RHP Bryan Shaw
RHP Matt Albers
This trade gives the Diamondbacks a young shortstop, though there is serious doubt as to the upside of the 23-year-old Gregorius, particularly due to his lack of on-base skills and any semblance of power.
They give up on Bauer, with many in the game believing the Snakes' disenchantment with the former No. 3 overall pick was based on the right-hander's unwillingness to change his pre-game rituals that some clubs do not believe will work for a big-league pitcher over the course of 30-35 starts.
Arizona also gave up two useful relievers to work the sixth, seventh and eighth innings.
The Reds' motivation appears to be all about center field and the leadoff spot, which is where they plan to use Choo. Choo's defense in right hasn't been very good of late and he has limited time in pro ball as a center fielder, so the Reds are certainly going to take an enormous step down defensively at the position.
In trading Gregorius, the Reds basically are committing, at least in the short term, to a defensively toolsy shortstop with a good arm and some range, but one that has not shown a lot of ability to hit, either for average and especially for power, during his time in the minors. I don't see a lot of upside there, but shortstops in general have value.
The Indians are the big winners here, in my opinion, though I certainly see the motivation for the Reds in Choo. Cleveland gets Bauer, who at worst is a two-inning power reliever who could end up closing games for a few years, as well as Shaw and Albers, who will help the club right away. Shaw could step in for Vinnie Pestano should the latter be asked to close as a result of a possible trade of Chris Perez.
The Tribe also get Stubbs's defense and can probably use he and Michael Brantley in a platoon scenario, or at least use Brantley as a fourth outfielder, which is what he really is.
The club still has shortstop Asdrubal Cabrera, whom they could try and move for yet another young arm.
What this means for the Mariners
What it doesn't mean is that the Reds are going to turn around and try and flip Jay Bruce. Choo is a one-year fix and they are using him in center field. If they were to buck trends and get Choo, a Scott Boras client, to sign an extension, that could change, but don't hold your breath on that one as the Reds are going for it in 2013.
Even if Bruce were to become available, the Reds' needs are the opposite of what the M's appear to have to offer. Cincinnati could use a frontline starter -- one with a track record in the majors -- and perhaps another veteran bullpen arm.
The Diamondbacks may now choose to keep Justin Upton, which could impact the Mariners two-fold. First, Upton is a player the M's could use and have had at least some interest in this winter. Second, if Upton stays in 'Zona, the Texas Rangers appear more likely to re-sign Josh Hamilton, the Mariners' No. 1 target.
Despite Towers saying its highly unlikely Upton is moved after Tuesday's trade, I believe there's a chance the D-backs still try to move Upton. The reasons given by Towers -- because now the team had filled its biggest needs -- do not fly. One of the reasons Upton has been on the block for two years is because the club questions how good he really is and how he fits. Skipper Kirk Gibson apparently isn't a huge fan of Upton's approach to the game in general.
I think Upton still could be dealt, and if that is the case the asking price may have changed as a result of Tuesday's 3-team deal. Rather than seeking a shortstop, perhaps GM Kevin Towers looks for a young third baseman and young starting pitching to replace Bauer.
Still, I do not believe Seattle is a good match, but Texas still is, with a Mike Olt/Martin Perez combo a possible starting point.
I know Mariners fans are frustrated, but it's so early in the offseason and the fact that other things have to fall their way for things to work out isn't the Mariners' fault. The alternative is to offer Hamilton a ridiculous contract that no player in Hamilton's position could ever turn down, which is something fans and analysts alike would shred to no end, or they can forget about him and move on to other players -- of lesser talent.
I think Jack Zduriencik deserved to be applauded for not acting desperate, even though in a way the organization is just that. Having said that, an overpay of Hamilton -- five years, $130 million, for example, is not an overpay I would harp on in the least. But remember, free agency is a two-way street and Hamilton clearly prefers the Rangers.
Secondary targets
After some of the smoke clears from free agent signings and significant trades, players that weren't believed to be available in November and early December could be put on the block as clubs look to take advantage of the trade market values going up and the free agent market running dry.
Dexter Fowler is one of those players, but he's not alone. Here are a few others on which to keep an eye as Christmas approaches, and especially once Hamilton and Nick Swisher pick their teams.
Carlos Gonzalez, OF
If the Rockies do not move Fowler for young starting pitching, the idea that they could entertain offers for Gonzalez is not ridiculous. He's owed $71 million over the next five years and is a solid player.
I contend that he's very much like Upton in that he's a star at home, pedestrian, at best, on the road. Look up the numbers, they don't lie.
Josh Willingham, OF/DH
The Twins would be wise to move Willingham this winter as his value will never be higher. He has two years and $14 million left on his deal -- an absolute bargain, even if he belongs at DH -- he's aging and coming off a career year.
Once the free agent market empties, Willingham could become the hottest commodity in baseball.
Nick Markakis, RF
The Orioles have a few young pitching prospects in Dylan Bundy and Kevin Gausman, so the M's aren't really a great match, per se, but Markakis could net them more of it. He's a solid bat, a better player than Carlos Gonzalez or Adam Jones, and is owed $30 million over the next two years with a club option at $17.5 million for 2015.
He plays the heck out of right field, too, and the lefty stick more than handles left-handed pitching.
The Orioles probably can get an everyday player plus a good pitching prospect for him in a 3-player package. Also, his injury in 2012 is irrelevant, since he's played 147-161 games per season every year of his career.
potential-new-developments
Comments
The following 130 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: marinersfan424 on 12-11-2012 19:28:07 Do you still think Jack is more likely to make a trade to acquire a bat or two rather than go after Hamilton, Swisher, or Bourn? It's frustrating that nothing seems to be happening, although I know that tons is happening that we don't hear about. Thanks for all of your updates and connections that you share! Is there another bat that they might be targeting under the radar that hasn't really been mentioned yet? |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-11-2012 19:29:55 I think the club prefers to spend some money on Hamilton and THEN make a trade. As for under-the-radar, it really doesn't exist anymore. The three names I mentioned above are about as close as it gets. They aren't off the radar, but they aren't being shopped or even believed to be "available" at this point. That could change in a month. |
| 3. By: drrew on 12-11-2012 19:33:52 ugh....I don't like how things look right now, and am not particularly enamored with any of those secondary targets. Another year without a single even borderline all-star hitter is going to make for a long summer. |
| 4. By: bakomariner on 12-11-2012 19:37:50 Hamilton is as good as gone, but Swisher, Morse, Bourn could all be a good fall back plan. Things are not over by a long shot. |
| 5. By: bigtrix36 on 12-11-2012 19:37:54 The bottom line is that there just aren't that many good players out there. I don't really think Jack can be blamed at all for this. I know fans are frustrated but honestly I'd rather they not shell out tons of cash for guys who might turn out like Sexton. |
| 6. By: marinersfan424 on 12-11-2012 19:38:58 Thanks. I've wondered about CarGo for a while, but I noticed the same home/road splits you're talking about and figured he would be similar to Upton, but probably cost more in talent to acquire. I've seen mentioned in several places that folks think the M's will get one of Hamilton/Swisher/Upton/Bourn. Who do you think is most likely of that group? Also - can Montero get to 280/350/500 with 25+ HR next year, or is that too bullish? And is Saunders tapped out, or could he make another stride forward to something like 270/330/450 and push 25 HR? |
| 7. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-11-2012 19:38:59 Until LaRoche signs in Washington, Morse talks are going nowhere. So we'll have to wait for the shoe to drop there. |
| 8. By: Boy9988 on 12-11-2012 19:42:10 Well that pretty much screws Seattle. I say just sit on the money, hold on to the prospects and look to next off-season when there are a lot better options. Not much left to be had in trade, not going to get Hamilton, or swisher, and bourn is not worth the money for this team. I HATE waiting, but Its probably the best option left. |
| 9. By: marinersfan424 on 12-11-2012 19:43:54 I agree that Jack shouldn't be blamed for what's happening. Like I said, I think he is doing the work, but the trade he's looking for isn't out there right now. Tough being patient as a fan, but the team will be better off for it in the long run. We've seen many examples of huge free-agent signings crippling a team for many years and I'm glad that Jack is doing his due diligence to make sure he makes the best signing possible. |
| 10. By: rotoenquire on 12-11-2012 19:48:25 Things are moving in a direction not condusive for the M's this off season. I don't blame JackZ it is the nature of the beast. Rangers look to go after A. Sanchez and retain Hamilton. Upton is no longer on the trade block UNLESS someone really over pays. Swisher who I like and I mentioned before the season end as a fit for teh M's. I just don't like paying the draft pick ontop of the fact you have too pay Swisher 14-16 Mill a year. |
| 11. By: Paul Martin on 12-11-2012 20:07:14 Nicely done by Cleveland, getting great value for Choo who was set to walk at years end. I would love to see Seattle throw 5 years 130+ million out to Hamilton, maybe they can at least run up the price on rival Texas? Would live to see Texas overpay to keep their player. Texas is the only team that has to be more frustrated than Seattle at this point having lost out on Greinke and now Upton... For our roster, I really like Swisher on a 3 or 4 year contract to give us RF/1B flexibility. Time to get a deal done Jack! |
| 12. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-11-2012 20:20:05 If only Swisher wasn't worth 5+ years in this market. Remember, Napoli got three at $13 mil per, Hunter got two at the same rate. Be shocked if Swisher got less than 4 guaranteed with an option for $60-70 mil. |
| 13. By: Panhead55 on 12-11-2012 20:34:03 Jason, can Oscar Tavares be pried loose from the Cards? |
| 14. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-11-2012 20:38:03 marinersfan424, That's probably a little optimistic on Montero, but the kid can hit and was very solid away from Safeco and overall against left-handed pitching. He was 60 OPS points better in second half than first and showed an ability to lay off the breaking ball out of the zone away, which hurt him bad in first half. Obviously, the new Safeco dimensions will help some, too, but I do believe he will take a full step forward in 2013 -- probably the one I expected in 2012 at the start of the year. As for Saunders, there's still room for more; I'd like to see a little more progress in terms of contact rates, will should give him a few more points of batting average and OBP, and the power is natural and could jump over 20 and into the 25 range in 2013. I don't see Saunders getting to .280/.350/.475 or anything, but .260/.330/.450 is a reasonable, yet challenging goal, IMO. |
| 15. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-11-2012 20:39:41 Panhead55, Probably not by the Mariners in a two-team trade. The Mariners' strengths organizationally are the Cardinals' strengths -- young pitching. |
| 16. By: rotoenquire on 12-11-2012 20:39:51 S. Schumaker was just aquired by the Dodgers making D. Gordon prime for trade bait. |
| 17. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-11-2012 20:51:18 Except for the fact that Schumaker is in no way a shortstop, so there's no correlation between his addition and Gordon becoming more available. The Dodgers aren't out to trade Gordon, first of all. And the price didn't just go down because of Schumaker. The dude's never played shortstop in seven big-league seasons, nor did he play it in the minors -- at all, not even for an inning. Gordon may be available, but Schumaker has nothing to do with it. He's an outfielder who can help at second base in a pinch only. |
| 18. By: Panhead55 on 12-11-2012 21:23:01 Back to Taveras, the Cards lack a 2b and will be trying Matt Carpenter at 2nd. If the Ms feel Franklin is ready, might we offer up Ackley? |
| 19. By: mykillmagnum on 12-11-2012 21:23:18 jason- yesterday you said that dom brown didnt seem like a fit. why do you feel that way? it sounds like philly might be willing to listen and if i remember correctly, he was once regarded as a top prospect. |
| 20. By: masonb on 12-11-2012 21:29:32 What's the problem with Dom Brown? He's a prospect and one that's had a chance, albeit a small one, to produce in the Majors and hasn't done anything. Why do people always fixate on prospects? What part of this team needs a proven Major League hitter don't some people understand? |
| 21. By: mykillmagnum on 12-11-2012 21:37:11 first of the question was for jason, secondly, no where did i say lets go out make him our starting right fielder and thats that. the reason why i asked because like you said masonb, he has a SMALL chance to produce in the majors, and not everyone is bryce harper or mike trout, you have to start somewhere, and he might be a player to go after, thats why i asked jason. |
| 22. By: davelee99 on 12-11-2012 21:50:16 Cameron has jumped the shark by proposing the Mariners trade Paxton and Franklin for R.A. Dickey... |
| 23. By: masonb on 12-11-2012 22:01:45 Well mykillmagnum, I'd suggest that if you pose a question and don't want anyone else to answer it, you E-mail Jason directly. Otherwise, if you post a question that's been asked in a similar form perhaps a million other times, don't be surprised when it gets slapped down. Welcome to message boards. |
| 24. By: mykillmagnum on 12-11-2012 22:45:11 There's a difference between having other people answer the question and having someone who wants to act like a pompous jerk because its not something they agree with. I personally don't sit at my computer and every comment, i dont have the time for that, so if that has been asked I apologize. But because its not what you want the ms to do, doesn't mean it can't be asked, and by no means does it mean it can't happen nor did I ever say I wanted it to happen. |
| 25. By: Edman on 12-11-2012 23:45:08 mykillmagnum, you post it here, regardless of directing it at Jason, others may respond. That's life. I'm sure there's some frustration from masonb, because people keep bringing up the same old tired names. Guys that get too much talk on internet sites. I understand that frustration, because IMHO, that last thing we need is more prospects. If Philly wanted to give him up in a minor deal, fine. But, Seattle needs proven hitters, if they're going to try to move forward. Prospects aren't going to help. Essentially, Wells, Thames, and a few others ARE already Brown. Either of them could suddenly take off and meet their potential as well. It's the frustration of not making a deal while others are, with the continued resurrection of the "ghoasts of prospects past. |
| 26. By: rjfrik on 12-11-2012 23:56:43 I agree with Jason. I think the JZ makes Hamilton one big offer but I think he stays with Texas. Then I think JZ looks at a trade. Bourn and Swisher are not fits for this club. First off, I believe they really don't want to come here and second their cost is prohibitive. 4 years plus an option at 15 to 16 million a year for Swisher, who will be 33 and is a career .256 hitter and has only averaged 24 HR's the last few years in a HR hitters park. You would have to be asinine to make that deal or Bavasi and JZ is neither one. I think the reality is that we are going to have to wait out another year. Let the young guys grow and see how they hit with the new fences. I know it's painful but it's the right move. And I do believe that all of us will be very happy with the growth. We literally could see five guys hit 20+ HR's next year and three guys hit 30+ in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with waiting another year. |
| 27. By: k0o56 on 12-12-2012 00:53:37 Jason, One name I've been wondering about is Corey Hart. Do you think MIL will make him available after Swisher/Hamilton come off the board? He has the 1B/OF combination (admittedly, I'm not sure what his defense is like at either) and is a middle order bat. Looks like he'd be a one-year rental, but if Choo was an option, wouldn't Hart be one too? Just wondering. |
| 28. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 01:35:19 rjfrik, I don't understand your hate for Swisher. Is he a Hamiliton? No. But, he provides more value than you seem to want to give him. Will he be overpaid? Yes, like every free agent. You're quick to point out that he has a .256 avg., but fail to mention that he has a .361 OBP. I would take 24 HR, with a .361 OBP on this team, any day. We could literally see five guys hit 20+ HR, buy why not six? I don't want him at any price, but put him in the lineup, with another upgrade via trade, and Seattle will at least be competitive offensively. Would I rather have Hamilton? Absolutely. But, if he returns to Texas, than I wouldn't be heartbroken if Swisher was a Mariner. You speak mighty boldly in regard to Jack's job, when you say there is nothing wrong with waiting another year. For every one that thinks like you, there are probably 1000 or more who want to see progress now. How long do you think Jack and the Mariners can continue to say, "wait until next year"? Some think it's already been too long. |
| 29. By: jgstecker on 12-12-2012 05:55:13 71 is the magic number next year. That's how many wins Jack has to get to tie Bavasi's record in his five year reign. Needless to say, Jack will have to better than that to keep his job. It's not entirely out of the question that Jack winds up with a worse record than Bavasi had. Of course, I think the system is far healthier now than it was then. It doesn't help matters that Seattle is now being connected to Bavasi guys like Morse and Dickey that Jack already sent packing once before. |
| 30. By: marinermutt on 12-12-2012 07:44:00 I don't hate Swisher but I would be worried on any deal over 3 years. Swisher has good number in NY but remember he has a lot of fire power around him which helps his numbers and he played in a hitters park. He wouldn't have that protection here in Seattle from the players or the park. |
| 31. By: masonb on 12-12-2012 08:02:39 mykillmagnum, Don't take it so personally. I'm just making the point that Dom Brown doesn't add anything that Seattle doesn't already have. Could he be good? Of course, but we thought Chris Snelling was going to be good. Anaheim though Brandon Wood and Dallas McPherson were going to be good. This team doesn't need unproven players. There's already a ton of those types of guys here. And you definitely don't need to trade talent to get another unproven talent. There's a reason that the Phillies haven't given him the chance to be a starter full time, even when they have guys like John Mayberry getting at-bats. He's not that good. Why would you want a guy like that? This team needs proven Major League talent. They aren't rebuilding anymore. It's annoying that people don't seem to understand that |
| 32. By: baseballman on 12-12-2012 08:49:21 I'm with rjfrik, I'd rather us not go after Swisher for the reasons he's posted. Swisher is getting older and would require a pretty big contract to get him here. I don't think he would be anywhere close to worth the contract we'd have to get him in order to come here. Rather look at other options which will have to be trade if Hamilton does decide to stay in Texas (hopefully he doesn't). I would much rather risk overpaying a player of Hamilton's caliber and losing a 1st round than overpaying Swisher and losing a 1st round pick just for the sake of improving 2013. In my opinion, #12 pick>Swisher. Please pass on him. |
| 33. By: Paul Martin on 12-12-2012 09:01:20 Aftermath of the big 3 team trade per Buster Only of ESPN: "The Mariners It's apparent that Seattle is not the top choice of the best free-agent hitters, and while the Mariners are pressing to land someone of note, they're probably going to wind up with a leftover -- somebody who grudgingly takes a deal in the Northwest in order to get paid. The fact that the Diamondbacks are now unlikely to trade Upton could effectively eliminate an option for the Mariners, because if Upton had been traded to the Rangers, then Hamilton or Bourn or Nick Swisher might have been naturally nudged in the Mariners' direction. Many top free agents are hesitant to play for Seattle, a team that doesn't look particularly close to winning." I think Swisher would rather come here than Cleveland, but if Boston wants him then we are in trouble. Thoughts? |
| 34. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 09:02:19 Some of you simply amaze me. You want no risk solutions for everything. A #12 overall draft pick that since 2000, had generated one superstar player, a couple solid major league players, and a remainer that have little or no impact. You don't want Seattle to risk any money. You want a perfect contract that never goes bad. I could go on, but not worth wasting my time. If the Mariners don't do anything this off-season, I better not see some of you complaining, because you support a philosophy that if it's not perfect, don't do it. I'll be the first to remind you that your choice was to do nothing, because of fear. A fear that isn't even your problem to solve. |
| 35. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 09:04:24 I'm losing more and more respect for Buster Onley. He's always takes the easy, predictable road. I can find that anywhere. |
| 36. By: baseballman on 12-12-2012 09:10:22 Risk money? It's not my money, they can do with it what they want. No clue why you're talking about fear but that's your thing I guess... Swisher isn't going to come in here and transform or change anything. He's what? 32 already? And will require a lengthy deal, I'm not even sure what kind of player he will be next year, let alone in year 4 of the deal. If Swisher is the way the club can "improve" the 25 man roster this year then hell yeah I say sit tight and keep that #12 pick. There's no fear of risk edman, I'd just rather pass on someone I see as a mistake for this team. And if you actually read my comment and not freaked out at the fact I said no to Swisher, I said I would not mind overpaying for Hamilton in the least bit. Here I'll even re-post the quote that you ignored: "I would much rather risk overpaying a player of Hamilton's caliber and losing a 1st round than overpaying Swisher and losing a 1st round pick just for the sake of improving 2013. " |
| 37. By: jgthompson21 on 12-12-2012 09:12:08 #33, Why would you assume that Swisher would rather be in Seattle than Cleveland? You do realize we are the exact same team as Cleveland right? You know, a team not considered to be in the running, not a lot "sure thing" players, expected to finish under .500 again. Again, why would he come out to Seattle to play over signing with Cleveland? Oh, by the way. Swisher is from Ohio and went to Ohio St. All things being equal, and with these two teams they probably are, I would think he goes "home". Seattle or Cleveland. One isn't better than the other for his actress wife |
| 38. By: diderot on 12-12-2012 09:37:25 The one common 'report' from the Internet that I believe is that the M's have been involved in more discussions on more players than anyone. I think that for whatever reason free agents haven't taken our money, and Jack has resisted making a bad deal just for appearance's sake. And if that's the case, if he's refusing to do something that he truly believes will not improve the organization, I have to applaud him for that. For example, if one year of Choo would have cost us Walker (a prospect better than Bauer), how many of us would have done that? Maybe his judgement will be proven wrong, but I appreciate his coolness under fire. Despite believing that they have both money and intent, I'm starting to think that nothing major gets done. I agree with those who think there is no way Hamilton leaves Texas as long as the Rangers want him. The key is the number of years he gets, and I haven't seen anything yet that proves that Hamilton and Swisher and Bourn won't get six. The Dodgers gave that to a guy who only plays (at best) in 20% of his team's games. So the end game isn't here yet, but I think the M's wind deciding to overpay in prospects for a second tier bat...or get ready for another year of firestorm. |
| 39. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-12-2012 09:37:34 I agree with you Jason that JZ should be praised for not being pressured into a risky move. He's had us going in the right direction and we can't take for granted what it was he inherited. The farm system hasn't been this highly ranked since the turn of the century and this is a team that will have to find cheap, competent ways to produce if it wants to compete. If they do nothing, better no move than the wrong one. I like what we have and I believe our young regulars are better than they showed last season. |
| 40. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 09:38:04 baseballman, by your own words, there's a fear of risk. You fear that Swisher WILL decline, because he's "already 32". So what, there have been several players who've been productive well past 32. Not sure what kind of player he'll be next year? Really? Again, apparently out of fear that he can't put up similar numbers again. Nothing to substantiate it, just your gut. There is fear all over your post. Fear of failure. Is Swisher the perfect answer? No. Will he lead the Mariners to the pennant? Probably not. Could he be a bat that helps the Mariners win more games? Compared to Wells and Thames, I'd take that bet. There is no perfect answer. Not even with the best free agents. They just come with less risk. |
| 41. By: Paul Martin on 12-12-2012 09:50:13 @37 good point, I did not know Swisher was from Ohio. I had heard rumors that he and his actress wife liked Seattle. I know his stats at Safeco Field over his career have also been pretty good, so he might be less scared off by the ballpark. @Edman I usually don't agree with anything you post, but I agree with you on your last couple takes. Fans in Seattle seem to want the perfect player on the perfect deal, and that just isn't going to happen. Just who is "good enough" to play for one of the worst offenses in baseball? I think Swisher or Hamilton would be great additions, even on an overpay. I don't get the fans that would rather keep their #12 draft pick? Jack has shown he can find talent in the draft in later rounds, that is what he does best. |
| 42. By: baseballman on 12-12-2012 09:51:56 Thinking a player will decline is not fear. Not sure what you think fear actually is, but by me saying I don't think Swisher will be a good player for us doesn't mean I "fear" signing him. Especially when I say I would love to overpay Hamilton (who wouldn't be worth the large contract we would have to give him). When did I ever say I don't like risk? I don't "fear" risk edman, I don't "fear" signing Swisher, I just don't think he would be good for us. Why pay a 32 year old like an All-Star when Saunders makes peanuts and will provide very similar stats next year. Go after Hamilton or trade for an OF...yes edman I said trade, even someone as afraid of "risk" as I am would like to go the trade even though it might not work out over signing Swisher to 15+ million. Please stop putting words in my mouth, I'm not afraid of a Swisher signing and I'm not looking for a perfect answer. Me not wanting Swisher at what he will cost is simply me seeing a bad deal before it happens. |
| 43. By: cptobvious on 12-12-2012 10:08:07 @39 "If they do nothing, better no move than the wrong one. " That really bothers me, and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but if you're going to be so afraid to make a bad move that you'd rather make no move at all, I think that's just awful. It reminds me of that old fable or bible story or w/e where the son gets the inheritence and is so afraid of losing it, he just burries it in the sand. Now I'm not saying to go out there and make bad trade that are obviously bad from the get go. I'll never defend the Dayton Moore trade. I'm just tired of the annual postering by the front office that 'well, we gave it the old college try' by being 'in' on everyone, but coming up empty every year. Eventually that becomes completely disingenuous (which it is now), or its a Z problem in how he's selling the organization. Free agency really is just sales, high stakes, multi-million dollar sales, but it is sales. And in sales, if you let your potential buyer walk out the door and put you off by needing to 'think it over' or 'ask his wife', you're not making that sale 9 times outa 10. Z keeps letting them walk out the door. Based on his comments on the Bob & Groz show a few weeks ago, Z's whole strategy last year with Fielder was to hope no one offered more than 3 years at a reasonable rate. In other words, Z hoped that the other 29 teams in baseball didn't want Fielder and he would just fall in his lap. That's not going to get it done, and it appears that that's his grand strategy this year aswell. We're 2 or 3 moves in baseball away from holding the short straw again and getting nothing. For me, this is 100% the time (if arizona is serious that they aren't trading upton now) to go all in and put your best offer on the table for hamilton. Whatever that is, put it out there and force Texas to make a move. Either they let him walk and we get hamilton (yaye), or you force their hand and Texas overpays or gets hamilton before theyre ready and prevents other possible moves by them (again, yaye). Then if Texas takes Hamilton back, that leaves swish and bourn deciding between what, us and cleveland? I just think at this point, we need to set yourself up to get whats best for US, not wait around for everyone else's leftovers and trying to be happy with that, because you probably won't be. |
| 44. By: aerichner on 12-12-2012 10:41:44 I don't mind that we havent signed anyone yet...and that has to do with the others in our division losing: - Brandon McCarthy - Zack Greinke - Mike Napoli - Michael Young - maaaaaaaybe Josh Hamilton - Stephen Drew - Koji Uehara - possibly Mike Adams - Dan Haren - basically James Shields and Justin Upton since both were strongly targeted by Texas So other than Texas playing Jurickson Profar everyday, teams are getting worse atleast on paper. If players were flocking to the A's, Rangers or Angels, I'd be worried...but it hasn't happened yet. I want Hamilton or Siwsher but if we come out of this with an arm (Shaun Marcum) and Cody Ross both on 2 year deals + get another bat through trade, I'd be ok with that. Everyone wants to sign STARS or trade for UPSIDE players, but those 2 would be solid additions to the team. |
| 45. By: Jerry on 12-12-2012 11:19:16 Edman says: "A #12 overall draft pick that since 2000, had generated one superstar player, a couple solid major league players, and a remainer that have little or no impact." This is incredibly sloppy and lazy analysis. Why is it useful to look at who OTHER teams have picked at #12? Instead, look at what the M's have done with high picks in the last few years under the current regime (I'm not counting picks before 12, just to make a point): 2011: Brad Miller and Carter Capps 2010: Taijuan Walker, James Paxton, Steven Pryor 2009: Nick Franklin, Kyle Seager The fact is, the M's have made VERY VERY good use of high draft picks. They won't get another top 5 pick like they have had in the last few drafts, but they are very good at turning draft picks into solid contributors. And the #12 pick is a lot more valuable than the ones I listed above, which were all supplemental round picks or lower. The M's are better at developing domestic talent than most other teams. They have an advantage in that area. They have more trouble with signing free agents, due to the team's current situation. Is it smart for the M's to handicap themselves in an area where they are good, in order to double down on an area they struggle? The obvious (and equally lazy) response to this is to mischaracterize what I'm say as "the M's need to continue to suck for 3 more years." I'm not saying that at all. There are lots of ways to improve the teams offense without signing high-priced free agents. At the right price, Josh Hamilton would be a great addition. It just seems less and less likely that he will be available for the right price. If the M's have to pay >$25 mil/year and commit for more than 4 years, plus give up a very valuable asset in the #12 overall pick, I'd look elsewhere. I don't buy the argument that the M's MUST overpay to get better. The Braves, Rays, Cardinals, and Giants, and more recently the Orioles and A's, have managed to win without overpaying for players in free agency (Barry Zito notwithstanding). If no free agent players make sense for the M's, they should continue to do what they do best and develop talent internally, and save that cash to resign their own players. |
| 46. By: maqman on 12-12-2012 11:44:50 Z is the anti-Bavasi, he won't make an unrealistic deal, it's not in his DNA. Neither Hamilton or Swisher is realistic at over four years or an AAV of $25MM for Hamilton or $13MM for Swisher. It's not that he doesn't want to make a deal, I believe him when he says he wants to, he's just not inclined to screw up and blow up all he's accomplished so far. He's made some mistakes, as we all have but I truly believe he's in the top five GMs in the game. |
| 47. By: jgthompson21 on 12-12-2012 11:49:57 Whoever wants to comment on this, I am perfectly ok with standing pat and getting minor additions and taking a look at the current team with the walls being moved in. I have zero problems with that theory. The problem I do have is an organization feeding tbe bullcrap about having money and wanting to spend it in order to upgrade the talent on team and then go out and openly say that we aren't going to overspend to bring in a FA. Seriously? If you're just going to continue the path, then quit feeding the fans a line of bullcrap. Being in on everyone but continuously falling short because you "hoped" players would fall into your lap is stupid and deceitful. Just tell everyone what the plan is and surprise the fans if a deal makes sense. Quit getting everyone's hopes up and then hit them in the gut with lies. This front office is horrible at communicating with the people that pay thier bills. |
| 48. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-12-2012 12:02:54 I suppose I could throw in "better the right move than no move," or just summarize it: Bad move < No move < Right move. I mean obviously if there are right moves to be made, make them. But right now with the players and options available, I don't know that the right move is out there, in which case, just stick to your guns and let the organization continue to develop. It would take an overpay to get Hamilton or Swisher, that much we know. I hesitate to believe Bourn even fits. I can go with trading Hultzen, Maurer or Paxton (or some combination of the two) in a package to get a younger, more cost-controlled bat, then spending some of the money on 4-years for a starter like Edwin Jackson or Anibal Sanchez. Putting either in the rotation negates the need for that many SP prospects anyway, and the draft pick you save would just return an impact prospect to you a few months later. Plus, still some money saved over to add another piece if available. That would be a smart way to hedge your bets, but if the cards just aren't out there and teams/FA's are just asking for too much, then what else do you do? |
| 49. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 12:16:16 Jerry, it's absolutely useful to look at what other teams have done, rather than to believe that Seattle has some mythical voodoo that other teams lack. They will have their share of failures in the first round, as will other teams. They are very good at drafting, but some will still fail, it's inevitable. As you have already pointed out, Seattle is very good at getting value from picks AFTER the first round. And if that's so, they can afford to take on the risk of losing a mid-round first round draft pick. You need proof of the distain for doing nothing? Read post #47. The fanbase don't believe that Seattle is interested in being competative. The average fan is not as willing to wait to do something, as you are. The "right price" is for the M's to decide they want to pay. None of us have a say in the matter. I trust Jack will make the right choice. And no matter what he does, people will complain. If he signed Hamilton for $100 a year, some will complain that he's got personal issues. And don't call me lazy. I do the research. If I'm lazy, then you're "misguided" to believe that the M's can do some form of magic with the #12 pick, that other teams wouldn't. I based my comment on historical data, that shows that no guarantees come with that pick in regard to the relative value that Swisher could bring. Every team thought they drafted the right player. |
| 50. By: Paul Martin on 12-12-2012 12:19:56 Based on the cost that Kansas City and Arizona had to give up in young prospects to get a trade done, the trade market doesn't look too good right now for Seattle. If they can't get good value for Franklin or the big 3 pitchers, they may be better off holding onto them another year. Maybe they become more proven and get some MLB playing time under their belts. I wish the M's would sign Hamilton or Swisher, but their chances don't look real good right now. If they have to settle for leftovers, why not sign another pitcher like Liriano? Maybe Felix can talk to the fellow Venezuelan and get him here on a one or two year deal. Speaking of Venezuelans, Gutierrez is hitting .308 in winter ball and is healthy. Would love to see him have a good year, but he is an injury waiting to happen. Wasn't Mike Morse injury prone when he was with us too? The second we got rid of him his injury issues seemed to go away... |
| 51. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 12:30:37 Agreed. I like the Markakis idea. Paxton/Franklin+ for Markakis?? What about Gose or Rasmus?? I completely agree. Trade for a bat. Then SIGN a pitcher. Keep the 12th pick. Anybody who says that pick isnt valuable is an idiot. Hamilton is worth losing the pick. None else, considering our window of contention has not arrived. |
| 52. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 12:39:43 Its not magic Edman, its scouting knowledge. Cmon man. The Ms have shown the ability to outperform in scouting the draft. If they have the 12th pick, they have a high chance to pick from most of the field (minus 11 players). Figure it out. |
| 53. By: rjfrik on 12-12-2012 12:57:29 Edman, I have no direct hate towards Nick Swisher. What I can't and won't tolerate is paying a player twice what he's worth in value and years. Nick Swisher is NOT worth 15 to 16 million a year for 4 to 5 years. He's not and that is a fact. I don't care if his OBP is .364. The fact is he's an over the hill free agent that is declining and has played in a hitters park surrounded by better protection then the M's can give him. If Nick Swisher wants to come to Seattle for a two year contract for 8 million a year. Then I would sign him. But he doesn't he wants one last big pay day and some dumb team, Cleveland, Boston, New York, is going to give him that. And you say that he will help Seattle win more games next year over Thames/Wells. Now we all know that he's a better player then those two. But lets look at just how much better. His projections according to Bill James is a little less then his 2011 season, where he played in a stacked lineup in NY. Now he's two years removed from that season so I would imagine a small decline in his defensive value. So let's put his 2013 season at 3 WAR, which in my opinion is more then fair playing for the M's. Teams will pay, on average, $600,000 for a replacement level player (WAR = 0) and $3 million for each incremental win above replacement (including players on pre-arbitration salaries). Given these market values and annual salary increases of about 2.7%, it would be fair to call Nick Swisher being worth 10 million dollars next year to the M's (He wants 15-16 million). In 2011 (A comparable year to his projected stats next year) he had a Win Probability of -0.08 meaning that he actually had more negative plays then positive plays when it comes to win expectancy. Bill James has Casper Wells performing much better next season then he did last season. In fact he has Wells having the exact same ISO has Swisher and only .50 points less in OPS, which would put Wells at .770. In fact Wells would have a WPA around 1.0 and a WAR around 2.0 with Bill James projections. (Remember Swisher is a 3 WAR and a -0.08 WPA) Now let's say that you are only platooning Wells and he plays against all LHPs. Wells, last year (Remember that James has Wells batting much better this year) an OPS of .891 and an ISO of .260!! These blow Swishers numbers out of the water. Now let's look at Thames, Wells platoon partner. Bill James has Eric Thames performing much better next season then he did last season. In fact he has Thames having and ISO at .191 and a better OPS the Wells at .788, which is only .30 less then Swisher's projected OPs. It's fair to say Thames would have a WPA around .08 and a WAR around 1.0 with Bill James projections. With James projection of Thames better then Thames's 2011 year you can compare Thames's 2011 splits with what his 2013 projection would be. Thames had a .809 OPS and a .196 ISO against all RHPs in 2011 when his numbers didn't look as good as what Bill James is projecting him to do in 2013. So theoretically you could have a player that has an OPS of .891 against LHPs and .809 against RHPs. He would have an ISO of .260 against LHPs and .196 against RHPs. That player more likely then not would have a WAR over 3. Or you could have Swisher who projects to have an .820 OPS and a .202 ISO. By looking at the numbers your platoon player projects to be a better player then Nick Swisher and that player would cost all of 1 million dollars to 1.5 million dollars depending on Thames option. That is what you have to look at. That is what JZ is looking at. No Doubt. Sometimes it's wise to not jump into a bad decision. To hold on to your investment. If you have 10 million dollars to invest you should do it in the safest way possible. Not throw it all into some new Sci-Fi movie starring Pauley Shore. That would be a waste of money. Just like Nick Swisher. There are other avenues to explore and if JZ has done all of that and has to wait a year then so be it. We as fans should not be mad about JZ being a good GM because a good GM would wait another year. And if you think "It's been too long" then you don't understand how to properly build a baseball club out of the ashes from the ground up. The Mariners were what the Astros are now. They were a defunct franchise that had no business in the big leagues. How long do you think it's going to take for the Astros to become contenders? I bet it's five years, they already have one year under their belts. And I don't get the doom and gloom about our team. 71 wins. Come on. This team will be a .500 ball club next year. The fences are moving in and the kids have a full season under their belts. You guys have to also understand that a lot of free agents don't want to come here. They want to see how the kids develop into a team that can compete. They want to see how the new fences will be. It's going to take a year of becoming relevant again, with our offense not being in the bottom three in baseball, for FAs to want to sign here. JZ did the first step by moving in the damn fences. Now lets see how our young thumpers handle the new dimensions. And Edman about the 12th pick. Why do you keep saying go back and look at #12? It's not just number 12 you have to look at. You need to look at 13, 14 and 15 as well. A team picking in that range has a board of three to four targets that they discuss taking. I would rather have JZ and Mac dissecting and discussing who out of those four players to take then any other front office in the league. If you go back and look at the last ten years who was picked in that range you will shit your pants for the type of player we can get at 12. Guys better then anyone on the free agent market and yes that means Hamilton. The argument you make is a poor one. |
| 54. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 13:06:13 In reguards to Z and McNamera in the draft, think about this... Z and Mac liked Mike Trout so much, that they seriously considered taking him OVER the consensus best bat in the draft at that time. NO OTHER team valued him that high (unless you believe the Yankees, who didnt have a pick that high) until the Angels got lucky with the second of their two first rounders. If they were on him to the degree that Z and Mac were, or that the rest of the league should have been, he clearly would have been the first of their two picks. They got lucky. Nick Franklin was rated WAY lower than we drafted him. Hes played way above what 'the rest of the league' thought about him. Z and Mac saw it. T.Walk. Enough said. He was a steal, and clearly Z and Mac had an edge over 'what the rest of the league would have done'. BTW, THEY ALSO TOOK STANEK in the same draft a few picks later. There were plenty of hard throwing highschool arms at the point the drafted Walker and Stanek. How is it that Z and Mac were able to target the two that turned out to be the best of the bunch??? Was it magic Edman??? Good lord some people are a bit slow... Z and Mac CLEARLY have an edge on the league in drafting. Their drafts have been EVIDENCE of that. Miller, Seager, Romero, just more evidence... The 12th pick is VERY valuable in the hands of Jack Z and Tom McNamera. |
| 55. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 13:06:26 In reguards to Z and McNamera in the draft, think about this... Z and Mac liked Mike Trout so much, that they seriously considered taking him OVER the consensus best bat in the draft at that time. NO OTHER team valued him that high (unless you believe the Yankees, who didnt have a pick that high) until the Angels got lucky with the second of their two first rounders. If they were on him to the degree that Z and Mac were, or that the rest of the league should have been, he clearly would have been the first of their two picks. They got lucky. Nick Franklin was rated WAY lower than we drafted him. Hes played way above what 'the rest of the league' thought about him. Z and Mac saw it. T.Walk. Enough said. He was a steal, and clearly Z and Mac had an edge over 'what the rest of the league would have done'. BTW, THEY ALSO TOOK STANEK in the same draft a few picks later. There were plenty of hard throwing highschool arms at the point the drafted Walker and Stanek. How is it that Z and Mac were able to target the two that turned out to be the best of the bunch??? Was it magic Edman??? Good lord some people are a bit slow... Z and Mac CLEARLY have an edge on the league in drafting. Their drafts have been EVIDENCE of that. Miller, Seager, Romero, just more evidence... The 12th pick is VERY valuable in the hands of Jack Z and Tom McNamera. |
| 56. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 13:16:19 Theoretically does not equal fact. As much as I appreciate Bill James, he has no way to calculate work ethic, mental approach, etc. I've followed Bill James for years, and he's making a calculated guess, and nothing more. And, I've also seen him miss on his predictions, sometimes by a wide margin. Some thing cannot be calculated. You talk about "theoretical" improvements, and call my agument poor, though it's based on actual history? |
| 57. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 13:23:13 I'm not saying that the pick isn't valuable. Of course it is. But passing up on Swisher because you're afraid of losing a draft pick in the middle of the first round, if it can help this year's team, is undervaluing winning now, and in the future. There are advantages to changing the preceived culture of the team. And I belive, they are worth punting a draft pick that is not in the top five. Believe what you may, but last I saw, winning is important too, especially if you are trying to convince Felix that's your goal, not collecting as many prospects as possible. |
| 58. By: rjfrik on 12-12-2012 13:33:42 Edman. What I used was actual facts. I used Wells and Thames splits that are facts, they are in the record books. If used together, as a platoon player, based on their stats, which I thought was factual, they would be a better player then Swisher. I also used Nick Swisher's stats, again I thought stats were factual. If you don't believe in Bill James then I guess you can't believe in his projections for Swisher either. So I'm not sure what you believe. I guess some pie in the sky theory of antiquated stats that only Edman knows. So here here people. Edman has declared that Nick Swisher is the greatest thing since slice bread and when facts are put in front of him he will dismiss them because in his head he knows what is right and wrong and facts be damned. There is a minority party in our government that has those exact same beliefs. Hmm. Makes one think. And here are some more facts for you. Even though you don't like facts I will post them for the rest of the guys that like facts. Players that fall within a few picks after the 12th pick. What JZ and Mac will be deciding on with (according to Edman) a worthless pick. By the way I have already posted this here before. Edman chose to ignore it, probably because it was a fact and he dismisses such things. 2011 - Jose Fernandez - Arguably the best pitching prospect in baseball. 2010- Yasami Grandall, Chris Sale 2009 - Aaron Crow, Grant Green, (Mike Trout) M's would of nabbed him w/12 2008 - Brett Lawrie, Jamille Weeks, Aaron Hicks, Brett Wallace 2007 - Jason Heyward, Devan Mesoraco 2006 - Travis Snider 2005 - Jay Bruce 2004 - Jered Weaver, Billy Butler, Stephen Drew 2003 - Aaron Hill 2022 - Cole Hamels, Nick Swisher, Joe Saunders. Maybe it's just me but that looks like a pretty good list of guys to have at the top of your board when it's time to pick 12th. Well it looks good to everyone but Edman. |
| 59. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 13:42:36 LOL.....rjfrik, you are the king of overration. Enjoy. |
| 60. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 13:43:16 overreaction, even |
| 61. By: MarinerCoug on 12-12-2012 13:44:38 Argh, now Jason has me obsessed with landing Markakis. Although if that would be too rich for Jack's blookd, I wonder if a play for Davis might be in order? Left-handed, has some pop, can play RF or 3B... |
| 62. By: gwangung on 12-12-2012 14:41:09 #58: Are you boasting about cherry picking? |
| 63. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 15:41:02 Actually I think that reaction was fairly well in line, in reaction to your previous arguements Edman. One thing I do agree with is the fact that we have to show Felix we are willing to improve the team and get into contention. I just strongly disagree that signing Swisher to the huge contract is the way to do that. Look at the A's, Rays, Giants, Orioles, and Cardinals. They all developed from within and made the right trades, moving built up assets for the right players. Big FAs (especially ones with the comparitively low cieling of Swisher) were never a part of the equation. The Cards resigned Holliday, but thats it. The Giants survived Zitos albatross contract, but theyre winning in spite of him, not because of him. All of these teams built from within. Teams that have spent big in the FA market on big names like Pujols, Reyes, Crawford, Bay, have not done so well, and Swisher is not even on the level of those FAs. Signing Swisher for 16 mil a year is soooo desparate. Come back to reality. |
| 64. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 15:57:57 Be safe, do nothing, take no risks. Let me know how well that plan works out. |
| 65. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 16:02:41 Dont get me wrong, I would like to see Swisher in right field and in the middle of the order next year as well, but never ever at the cost of 15 to 17 mil a year AND the 12th pick. Its so short sighted. If we draft a nice player with that pick, sign some FA pitchers, and/or make a trade, we add depth, value, and assets. A lot of the Ms assets will gain value when they are major league ready, and the guys on the ML roster will be better, and still under club control for many years to come. Those are the most valuable players to GM now, because theyre cheap, productive, and on the upswing of theyre careers. Those are VERY valuable trade chips, and Z can flip them when their value is closer to peaked. You can improve your club in so many ways simply by signing Jackson or taking flyer on low rish high rewards types Marcum or Liriano. Ross is there. Hafner. Hamilton is the only guy worth the 12th pick because hes impact. He sells jerseys and creates buzz, backing it up with elite production. Swisher does not. |
| 66. By: dewey on 12-12-2012 16:07:43 #54 I get that Tmac and JZ our good in the draft but i never heard them say they allmost took Trout until he arrived in the majors .Not saying they didnt but hindsite when the kid is becoming a star is a little questionable for me.By the way Trout and the Angels other first rounder where back to back picks i think 25-26th so 24 other teams missed also. Cmon JZ just sign Hamilton and get it over with we need help at the major league level now. |
| 67. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 16:13:36 'Be safe, do nothing, take no risks. Let me know how well that plan works out.' Thats an oversimplification. I disagree. You make trades. Sign pitchers. Try to go after the big risk by overpaying Hamilton. If you miss, dont bull a Bavasi and get desparate. Thats my plan. |
| 68. By: Alpha Blu on 12-12-2012 16:16:48 Edman, teams take risks every time they draft a player. Prospects are valuable in their own right, and we're just starting to see the fruits of a well-stocked system. Everyone wants to win now, I get that. Wanting something often precludes one from applying rational thought to a situation. In this instance, your justified desire to win has led you to ignore rjfrik's stats that lend legitimate credence to the idea of a Thames/Wells rather than an overpay for Swisher. The Rays are a perfect example of a perennial contender that stays young and talented by drafting very well and selling off assets when their value peaks. The Mariners can become a franchise much like the Rays in this regard. All it takes is a little patience. Bavasi spent under heavy pressure from the public, and it crippled the franchise for the better part of a decade. |
| 69. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 16:22:27 Why the hell do you care how much Swisher or any other player makes? Are you paying the bill? Isn't that the Mariner's choice as to how much they are willing to spend and on what players? All you should give a damn about is who, not how much. It's none of your business how much the M's spend. Yet, fans believe that they have a say in such matters. You don't!!! You don't like the way they spend their money, don't go to games. Sit at home and do nothing. If you don't think Swisher will sell jerseys and create a buzz, you're kidding yourself. I'd bet that he could sell more jerseys than Marcum, Liriano, Ross and Hafner combined. Of course Hamilton would sell more, but don't make it sound like it's a huge revenue loss for team store items. You're using your perspective to think for others. You don't think that Joe Averagefan wouldn't be excited to have Swisher in a Mariner uniform? And Ex-Yankee with his own fanbase? You're all for your favorite players, and I get that. But, don't make your favorite players into a cure. Please, do not try to explain Major League value. I've been following the game for many, many years. This isn't fantasy league stuff for the M's. There is a lot more at stake than worrying about overpaying a Free Agent. It's going to happen, no matter who it is. And really, you're complaining about Swisher at $15-16 million for four years, and praising Hamilton at say $23-29 million for at least that, and maybe more, while worrying about their salaries? |
| 70. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 16:32:17 Alpha Blu, how many years of ineptness did it take before the Rays turned it around? How many top 5 draft picks? They suffered, and not because they were brilliant. Because they had no other choice. They survived the best way they could, without the revenue streams of others in their division. Seattle does not have that excuse. You're kidding yourself if you believe that the Rays would have used the same strategy, if they had another $30 million in payroll to work with. What the Rays did is to be commended. And yes, it's the right way. But no, it's not the only way. It can be a hybrid and still work. Luckily, Jack is way smarter than all of us, so he'll do the best job he can to make the right decisions, no matter what they are. He doesn't need our approval. He will make mistakes, but I would bet that he gets far more right than wrong. |
| 71. By: Jerry on 12-12-2012 18:23:27 "Luckily, Jack is way smarter than all of us, so he'll do the best job he can to make the right decisions, no matter what they are. He doesn't need our approval. He will make mistakes, but I would bet that he gets far more right than wrong." I agree. But he seems to not be doing what you are arguing should be done. The M's are in on the big-name guys, but don't seem to be willing to overpay (which they shouldn't). They have made minor moves. For every Josh Hamilton rumor, there are a bunch more concerning guys like Brennan Boesch, Dee Gordon, Mike Morse, and other complementary players. I'd expect more moves in the latter category, and that's fine. |
| 72. By: Jerry on 12-12-2012 18:50:31 Oh, and one more thing regarding draft picks, free agents, and general approach to building a team: Like any good leader or manager, the M's front office needs to reflexively look inward and judge their own strengths and weaknesses. Bill Bavasi was terrible because he couldn't do this. He couldn't accurately judge the state of the team, the strengths of the organization, the talent of his own players, or his own qualities. That is why Asdrubal Cabrera, Shin-Soo Choo, Adam Jones, and Chris Tillman are playing for other teams right now. Jack and colleagues are really good at player development. Regardless of what anyone says, the M's track record in the draft since McNamara took over is exemplary, especially given the fact that they haven't had the luxury of extra picks or huge over-slot bonus spending. Thats a fact. Look at the results. The draft always takes a while to yield returns, but the M's are already starting to reap the benefits. He's also good at swinging under-the-radar trades and acquisition (Aardsma, Jaso, Ryan, the Putz deal, Wilhelmsen, Perez, etc). They aren't as focused on huge trades or free agent signings (the Lee deal being the obvious exception). And that's fine, because free agency is the worst way to get good value. The way the M's organization is set up - their strengths - lie in player development. They need to maximize that strength. As many have pointed out, the M's aren't a poor franchise, and shouldn't act like one. But that doesn't mean that they should get desperate and go away from their strengths. Having money doesn't mean you should waste money. The M's financial power should be put mainly into locking up home-grown talent. If they keep developing quality players, the winning will come. Winning fills seats, not high-profile free agents. The best way to win - for this club - is to continue doing what they are doing. I think they are damn close, and will be better next year even if they do very little this offseason due to normal progress from guys like Montero, Seager, Smoak, Ackley, and Saunders, plus some help from Hultzen, Paxton, Zunino, Walker, Franklin et al in the near future. We have a lot of good young talent and a phenomenal farm system. It will pay off, soon. I'm not saying they shouldn't explore free agents and trade options to make the club better. There are good deals to be made. But - again, to belabor the point - they would be dumb to get away from their strengths. Unless they change the guys running this club, I'd expect the team to operate more like Atlanta or St. Louis than Boston or the LA clubs. Its not their M.O., and they probably wouldn't do a good job at it if they tried. St. Louis and Atlanta are consistent contenders who got there mainly by developing players and keeping the good ones around for a while. It's important to note that those two clubs have been consistently good for a long time. That's the path the M's need to follow. I think Jack gets that, too. |
| 73. By: rotoenquire on 12-12-2012 19:06:42 I like the idea of adding Boesch via trade. it is a buy low option and could only cost a LHR and a low end prospect. Add Ibanez too duo with Bay in the OF and DH could be a nice offensive upgrade. |
| 74. By: rjfrik on 12-12-2012 19:31:56 Edman I may be over reacting but it was justified. A few days ago in another thread I voiced that the M's should not sign Swisher do to the contract that he would demand and Swisher not being worth the contract. You told me that was just my opinion and I should back it up with facts. So I took your words to heart and actually backed up my opinion by bringing facts to the table. Then my facts were dismissed, they didn't matter. That was irritating and frankly not fair. Thus I over reacted. But this is an example of why it's frustrating to have a discussion with you. You do this a lot. About Swisher, you are acting like the Mariners are the Dodgers and we have unlimited money to spend on anyone and everyone. If that was the case, the fuck it, offer Hamilton a 5 year 200 million contract. Offer Swisher a 5 year 100 million contract. Offer Bourn a 5 year 100 million contract. Offer Sanchez a 5 year 120 million contract. Offer Marcum a 5 year 100 million contract. Offer all the FA's offers they couldn't refuse. Let them know we are buying a championship You could have a lineup of CF Bourn RF Swisher LF Hamilton DH Montero 3B Seager 1B Smoak C Jaso 2B Ackley SS Ryan Saunders, Andino, Bay as your bench. Felix Sanchez Marcum Vargas Iwakuma If we were made of money there you go. You would be happy? I'm not even sure that is a championship team. Is this reality? No it is not. Why? Because the M's whether you like it or not are not a team that can dump over 85 to 90 million on payroll in any given year and with their declining attendance I wouldn't be comfortable going over 75 million unless they brought in a guy who could increase the gate and Swisher is not that guy, fans could give two shits about Swisher. He's been to one All Star game in this entire career. The Mariners have 66 million in salaries now and once they pick up options on a few of their players they will be close to 70 million dollars. If they went out and signed Swisher to the 15 million dollar contract then they would be at their budget. So for the next four years minimum you would be at your budget. You lose 8 million off the books after next year for Figgins. So if you sign Swisher you would have roughly 8 million dollars to sign someone in year 2, 3 and 4 of Swishers contract. With all the young kids coming up Montero, Seager, Smoak, Saunders, Ramirez you will have guys that are all of the sudden arbitration eligible. What happens then? That 8 million you had for Figgins is gone. Your over your budget and why? Because you signed a 33 year old player to a four year contract. All of the sudden Swisher is the new Figgins. If we were one player away from a championship then go sign Swisher to the deal you are talking about. Fuck it. If you get two years of a decent Swisher for a championship run then punting the two years on the back half of his contract would be worth it. But the M's are not that team. We are a team the unfortunately has to wait until some of our young pieces grow. Everyone from the Owners to the Players to the Fans signed up for this back when JZ took the reigns. It's a five year plan. Let's get competitive by year five. Well if we can manage a .500 record, which I think we can, then that plan is a success. The next five years that follow this the bar should be raised. We aren't starting from scratch anymore. The bar should be let's make a playoff and championship club. And frankly I could see in the five years after the next one the Mariners reaching those goals. But you have to stay the course. You can't bail out when you see the horizon. You can't quit at the finish line and signing Swisher would exemplify just that. A desperate move that steers you off course. |
| 75. By: rth1986 on 12-12-2012 20:35:19 Boesch is a bad player and wouldn't have a role on this team. If the Mariners didn't already have Saunders and Thames, then maybe he'd be worth a flyer, but not now. At this point, the Mariners need to get outfielders that would be better than any current outfielder on the roster. Boesch would just create more problems than he would solve. |
| 76. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 20:37:49 Thank you. I follow the same basic, clearly observable logic, however I am not as patient to type out the extensive explaination. Edmans arguement is usually 'you guys are not always right'. Sometimes you have some good posts Edman, but I dont know where youre going with this one. Overpaying Swisher is not a good move. Also, the reason I care how much they give Swisher is for the reasons rfjrik sufficiently well stated above. The contract becomes a problem later. If you had been paying attention during alll the years youve been an M's fan you would have observed this happening to the M's several times. BTW, appreciate your fandom. Were all in that same boat. |
| 77. By: d2ret on 12-12-2012 20:43:26 Why am I using my time to argue with Edman? Im outta here... |
| 78. By: Rudolf on 12-12-2012 20:46:04 I don't understand why Swisher is expected to become a steaming pile over the next four years. Lots of players perform well into their mid-30's, especially competitive guys who love playing the game. Swisher has a patient approach at the plate. He plays decent defense (with versatility). He can hit 25 dingers. WAR goes for about 5 million per, so a 3-WAR player is worth about $15 million. I'd bet Swisher can remain a 3-WAR player for another two years, maybe three. During those three years he will anchor the line-up, get on base, create a fun environment in the dugout, and for the most part earn his paycheck. True, he could become a 2-WAR player during the contract-- so we overpay the guy a little bit! 4/60 seems reasonable. That's paying him to be a 3-WAR player for the life of the contract. Over the last seven years he has had one season below 3-WAR, and that appears to be an anomoly. He's been roughly a 4-WAR player the last three years in NY. |
| 79. By: Mackie on 12-12-2012 20:48:23 If the Mariners actually have money to spend and if Swisher isn't blocking any of the kids, I don't see why it would be such a bad idea to have him on the team for a while. Edman may not always be the most agreeable person on here, but when he says a rebuild can be done in a hybrid manner, I agree wholeheartedly, and I believe Swisher or Hamilton could be a part of something like that. Does our farm system have the bullets to get the job done, without help from outside, all on its own, during the next few years? I don't believe there is a farm system in MLB that is good enough that its big-league club can depend on it exclusively to provide top-quality players year in and year out who will lead them to championships. It's a "plan" the Mariners have, but I sense there isn't anything particularly rigid about it, and that it's open to being tweaked. When things such as 50% fan loss over a period of time and several consecutive years of under-.500 ball rear their ugly heads, it doesn't necessarily denote 'desperate times'... and 'desperate measures' aren't necessarily called for. But if it's a matter of a franchise trying its best to field a competitive team every year, which is what they should be trying to do... it seems there might be more of a sense of urgency to tweak the plan a bit by bringing in a player or two who could accelerate things. And those players might not have to be super-expensive or high-profile if the right deals aren't there for better players. I don't necessarily advocate "dumpster diving", but at this point I just want them to make upgrades. If they can make some significant upgrades by adding players who won't block kids for a while, that's fine with me. If they can add several players through some low-radar upgrades (like they did with Jaso), that's also good. I think the M's will manage a .500 record next year whether or not they add higher-profile players. They're getting better, and they aren't even near their 'window' for contending yet. But with an extra playoff slot now in play, why settle for .500? If you can pick up some pieces that might get you to .550, I think it's worth the gamble. It just comes down to whether the right deals are there or not, and we have to trust the GM to get done what he knows is best for the ball club. |
| 80. By: sexymarinersfan on 12-12-2012 21:08:57 I think ownership is getting ready to sell. |
| 81. By: Edman on 12-12-2012 22:23:25 It makes no sense for ownership to drive down the value of the team with poor attendance. It's like doing no home improvements, and expecting people to rush to buy your house. They also have a big TV contract coming in 2015. They have a product to maintain if they want to sell. And, the better the team is playing and drawing fans, the greater the franchise value. I understand that Swisher isn't a superstar, but he comes pretty close, with a smaller risk than Hamilton, provided he steps in at about $10 million less than Hamilton. Money that could go toward another bat or starting pitcher. |
| 82. By: diderot on 12-12-2012 22:56:33 I'd be fine with Swisher. But I also think he believes he can still get six years. |
| 83. By: John_S on 12-13-2012 06:04:43 sexymarinersfan - I agree with you and hopefully for the good of the team it's sooner rather than later. Baseball Prospectus has a great read on this issue - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16485 The recipe is there for a sale - 1) A great stadium with added improvements 2) No huge contracts / Low Payroll 3) Upcoming TV contract 4) Yamauchi's Age 5) Chris Larsen Divorce |
| 84. By: marinermutt on 12-13-2012 07:05:39 Edman, I can understand your thoughts on selling the team and using a house as an example. But in the same token, if I am selling a house and I have an oil field in my yard that will start to produce in 2015, I know the value of my house will is already high. So why put a lot of money into the house fixing it up now before I sell if I'm not sure it will add additional value. I don't know if the M's are thinking like that and I hope they are not but one could see the reasoning of something like that if they do plan on selling the team and if cash is tight and with dropping attendance, cash flows have had to be impacted in a negative way. |
| 85. By: rotoenquire on 12-13-2012 08:26:38 Could a trade for Soriano make sense? I think yes if it only costs u 1 or 2 low level prospects I would do it. The Cubs would be eating 26 Million of his remaining 36 owed. Also adding Boesch on the cheap I think would be better for the team in the long run than adding a pricey Swisher. You could also do these deals and overpay a Hamilton 5 for 135. And have a revamped OF with a great amount of HR power tossed in. You do lose some defense in the OF. But, u still have solid INF defense. |
| 86. By: Edman on 12-13-2012 09:40:29 I'm not so sure that the Cubs would pay that much to get rid of Soriano's contract. $10 million for two years of service? You think the Swisher @ 32 decline issue is important, how about Soriano @ 36? Where is this Hamilton 5 for $135 million coming from? It's not a real number. It's something that someone through out there. |
| 87. By: Edman on 12-13-2012 09:42:15 threw out, even...sheesh |
| 88. By: qwerty on 12-13-2012 10:06:33 If it's true that FA are hesitant to come here, beyond the Safeco factor, how much is it the organization/ownership reputation itself? If word on the street is that ownership is looking to sell (true or not) does that scare off FA's? |
| 89. By: Edman on 12-13-2012 10:18:26 qwerty, they generally go where the money is, and could care less about who owns the team. The ownership group doesn't have a reputation problem with the players, just the fans. |
| 90. By: rotoenquire on 12-13-2012 10:39:37 There have been reports sense last year the Cubs would eat a ton of Sorianos contract. And another report came out this morning it could be in upwords of 26 mill. At the price remaining for what players are going for now that is a deal. We all know he is on the decline your not getting him for the future. Your getting him for 2 years on the cheap and if he busts oh well, if he hits .250 and cracks 25+ I call it a win and ur not giving up a draft pick on top of it. You add Boesch for the upside and for the future. He was predicted by many experts to have a huge year last year 30 hr kind of year. As too the Hamilton number u will need to offer more years at a higher price to land him. The M's have to offer something other teams won't match and I think 5 for 135 maybe low for that. He would go back to Texas I think for less unless the M's overpay. Like what the Nat's did with Werth they had to go too the extreme to show they were serious to F/A about winning. |
| 91. By: Edman on 12-13-2012 10:47:22 So, it gets down to what failure is acceptable? |
| 92. By: Rudolf on 12-13-2012 11:15:18 So, Hamilton to the Angels?? |
| 93. By: k0o56 on 12-13-2012 11:33:06 What just happened? I'm still in shock and don't know how to react... |
| 94. By: VikingArthur on 12-13-2012 11:35:03 I generally agree with the idea of building a team from within and all of that. That said, I think we should not hesitate to give Hamilton 4/100, 5/120, etc. Swisher, to me, is a slight upgrade. If I were running the M's I would not give him 4/40 which is much less than he'll get. Why? Because he is not a guy who changes anything in terms of perception (by the fans or other players). He may be reasonably productive (I have my doubts actually on that) but he simply is not worth a significant investment. I get where Edman is coming from here... and I agree for the most part, I just completely disagree on the idea that Swisher is a worthwhile signing. Frankly, I'd rather have Pagan than Swisher... we could have had Pagan AND Melky for as much or less money than Swisher will demand. But I have been crying about not signing Melky since it happened. |
| 95. By: Lombardie360 on 12-13-2012 11:37:49 What dont you get? A division rival just committed a bunch of money to a guy they "dont need". Maybe Hamilton can pitch who knows. I dont want to give him 6-7 years at 150+. It sucks but nothing to lose any sanity over. At all... |
| 96. By: VikingArthur on 12-13-2012 11:38:13 Oh crap... The Angels got Josh. Well... they are dooming themselves to complete inflexibility with Albert and Josh getting $50 million a year together. That franchise has lost its way and they got lucky with Trout. But good lord... Trout, Kendrick, Albert, Hamilton, Trumbo at the top of a lineup is fucking terrifying. May as well punt 2013, we won't be competing with that. Wow. |
| 97. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-13-2012 11:40:01 Man ... Trout or no, that team is going to be hurting in a couple of years. Maybe now we can all move on and focus on the cool stuff we have. |
| 98. By: VikingArthur on 12-13-2012 11:43:30 I am beginning to understand the plight of Oriole and Blue Jay fans... good lord. |
| 99. By: k0o56 on 12-13-2012 11:47:39 #95 It was just a shocker that they'd come out of nowhere. Their budget took a hit, but damn what a lineup... |
| 100. By: VikingArthur on 12-13-2012 11:58:33 I think this signing should serve notice to baseball fans and especially M's fans that the game of baseball is changing. The Yanks and Boston have always been willing to spend massive money but now we have teams like the Dodgers, Angles, Phillies, Rangers, etc who are taking huge swings at winning. I guess this reinforces that the Mariners should stick to the plan of building from within because we all know our ownership is not willing to go to the lengths that other teams do. |
| 101. By: Lombardie360 on 12-13-2012 12:08:42 #99. Sorry. I was overwhlemed with fan depressed fans on my phone and internet. I wanted him too. But apparently it just wasnt meant to be. And Im ok with it. Especially at what it would have taken. Sheesh! |
| 102. By: drrew on 12-13-2012 12:30:23 It's now long past the time for Z's 'plan' to start coming into shape. Swisher doesn't seem likely to come here. Bourn barely improves the lineup. Boesch doesn't seem like a much better gamble than Thames or Wells to turn into a quality starting OF. Is all the hope really on moving the fences in and some combination of Montero, Saunders, Ackley, Smoak, Seager making huge strides? |
| 103. By: Edman on 12-13-2012 12:45:02 Baseball has a serious, serious problem on its hands. The new TV revenue deals are causing an even bigger imbalance between the large viewing market teams, and the middle to lower market share teams. Teams are spending money as if it's free. It's the same formula for disaster as mortgage leanding to values over 100% of the house/property values. All but a few teams are going to be able to compete in the Free Agent market. The Angels didn't need Hamilton, but they were convinced that their plan to buy the pennant in 2012 didn't work, so they are going to throw more money at the problem. All that we can hope for is that they continue to fail, no matter how much they spend. *sigh* |
| 104. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-13-2012 13:58:42 Jeff Sullivan made a good point on fangraphs, that Hamilton at his current baseline doesn't represent a huge upgrade in value over Torii Hunter. I'm just not all that worried about it and actually pretty relieved WE didn't try to blow that offer away to get him. Regardless of what anyone things about how money is being spent and thrown around, the truth remains that some of the best records in the league were held by Tampa, Texas, Baltimore, Oakland, Washington and Cincy. These are all franchises who have big presents and bright futures and all with perfectly reasonable or even miniscule payrolls. The Yanks and the Red Sox and the LA's are a fact of life. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't preclude the Mariners from making good decisions and moving forward. This team has come from nothing several times before. It will do it again so long as the management in place continues to make sound decisions over its team. By and large, JZ has done that. So lets just keep going! |
| 105. By: Missthosepilots on 12-13-2012 14:21:56 Well said JA! Good management plus patience is a virtue unless you can print your own money. And neither formula works to perfection as you rightly stated. Normally, the Trouts of the world are the exception, as it takes time in baseball to develop talent. If Z has begun to turn over the pieces of the puzzle from the gaint mess, I hope people will let him now let him continue to put them together without crying for his heaad when it doesn't happen tomorrow. |
| 106. By: rjfrik on 12-13-2012 15:55:45 Yes. The bottom line is we all have to be patient and let the kids develop. I know everyone remembers the 95 Mariners, one of the greatest Mariner teams ever. Look at their key players. All were brought up with the M's or acquired by the M's as rookies. Wilson - Acquired from Cinci after playing 33 games for them Edgar - From the Farm Tino - From the Farm ARod - From the Farm Jr. - From the Farm Buhner - Acquired from NY after playing 7 games for them Big Unit - Acquired from Expos after pitching in 11 games. All of the "core players" were either brought up through the farm or acquired when they were still considered rookies. If you look at our "core players" it's eerily similar. Montero - Acquired from NY after playing 18 games Smoak - Acquired from Tex after playing 70 games Ackley - From Farm Seager - From Farm Saunders - From Farm Zunino - From Farm Felix - From Farm Personally I like how the current M's are stacked. We don't have the superstars, yet, that the 95 M's had but we have much more quantity. Especially with the big 4 waiting to fill up the pitching staff. And our bullpen is WAY better. We just need to watch them develop. That 95 teams didn't develop overnight either. It took them a good three + years for those guys to start competing. Wilson 3 years Edgar 6 years Tino 5 years ARod rookie Jr. 6 years Buhner 7 years Unit 6 years |
| 107. By: drrew on 12-13-2012 16:46:05 @rjfrik #106 Before making this comparison, point out who in the organization is supposed to approximate even a fraction of Junior, Edgar, or Alex. I'm most down on this team because of the complete lack of high end offensive talent. I'd like the team to win, and I'd like the team to be entertaining. Currently it does neither, and there's not a ton of hope for either happening anytime soon. |
| 108. By: dewey on 12-13-2012 17:13:44 #106 Can i ask who exactly even closely resembles JR or Arod? Our hits like Edgar our has the power of Buhner? Felix and Unit i will give a wash.I am a fan also but thats way off in my humble opinion.Can we make a trade are sign someone please. |
| 109. By: docsmith on 12-13-2012 17:28:16 @107/108....I think you are taking rjfrik post (106) a bit too literally. We had tremendous talent in places on those teams, but huge holes in the bullpen and pitching staff in general. Thus, we were good enough to compete. I much prefer building a team without a weakness. Contributions from every player. No Bobby Ayala. I think we can be more competative this year, maybe a 500 club. We need some more talent, no doubt. But we have such a better core today that we did 5 years ago. Really, we have a better core now than any time since ~2002/2003. Unfortunately, I think the peak of the current core will be 2014-2018. |
| 110. By: masonb on 12-13-2012 17:32:14 I swear to God, some of you guys have just the worst reading comprehension skills. Where did rjfrik say that these guys were comparable? He was simply comparing how that team was constructed and how those players were acquired to this team and making the point that the process has to be right in order to build the right team. And how do we know that Hamilton didn't have a higher offer from Seattle? Some people fail to realize that it takes two to tango. And if it would have taken an extra year and 25+ more to get him, that's not good for the franchise. |
| 111. By: drrew on 12-13-2012 17:53:44 @110 - masonb I was simply pointing out that you can't point to 1995 roster and how it was built, and decide that is the process that works. That roster had 3 of the top 50 players of all time, and probably 4 of the top 100 or so. That is what made that specific team special, not some magical process of developing players internally that can now be copied. As far as Hamilton, JAC did a pretty good job of lowering those expectations, that being said, it's still a kick in the gut to see him sign with a division rival. Jason Bay and a new TV in center isn't enough. |
| 112. By: masonb on 12-13-2012 18:20:59 drew, you're right. He isn't saying that. He's saying that it could work again and perhaps it's a plan. You can't say that it's not how the process works either. That's why arguments like yours are pointless. |
| 113. By: baseballman on 12-13-2012 18:32:40 "Jason Bay and a new TV in center isn't enough." And there it is... |
| 114. By: Paul Martin on 12-13-2012 19:00:28 Random thoughts on Hamilton to the Angels: 1. Shocked he went there but not surprised Seattle didn't sign him. They are not willing to pay (much less OVER pay) the going rate for free agents today. Look at all the top free agents, they are all getting big bucks, way more than the experts projected. 2. Sure wish we had an owner that cared and was passionate about winning like Arty Moreno, the Dodgers group, or Steinbrenner. Instead we have a faceless ownership that just cares about turning a profit and seeing the value of the franchise increase. Until we get a new owner (and Armstrong and Lincoln are gone) we will never win anything. 3. This is going to be fun seeing what Texas does next. They have to be in a state of panic at this point, as NOTHING has gone their way. 4. This signing doesn't help the Angels THAT much. Tori Hunter had a huge year last year and he is gone. I still don't like their starting pitching depth either. If they don't make another big move for pitching, this move doesn't mean much. 5. I don't see Seattle signing anyone big in free agency. They are only going to spend money if the years and dollars are right. 6. Our young prospects are not highly valued by other teams making a big trade unlikely. 7. Hope jack can use his evaluation skills to sign good fringe prospects and reclamation projects because that is all we are getting. 8. I was in LA last year when they signed Pujols. All the talk was that they were going to the World Series. Last I checked, Oakland won the division and LA didn't even make the playoffs. |
| 115. By: Edman on 12-13-2012 19:30:24 I don't agree with your assessment that other teams don't like our prospects. That's a very narrow-minded statement. Because Jack hasn't trade them, doesn't mean other teams don't want them. In all likelihood, Jack values them too much to let them go for what he feels is less than their value. Seattle's young pitching is very highly touted. Texas and California had better take advantage while they can. They're spending their TV revenues as if it's an unending fountain of gold. They both have long contracts that at the moment seem lucrative, but toward the end of them, other teams will be catching up, and the average player salaries will be going up. 2015 is what we should be focusing on. Seattle will have a lot of matured players from the youth movement, that are cost controlled, and lots of additional revenue from a new television rights package. Jack can still put together a decent club, with what's left. There are trades that can still be made, and I expect him to make a few. I'm not a huge Bourne fan, but if you could get him for about half of what Ichiro made, along with a Swisher, and maybe make a couple other minor trades, Seattle could compete. Poor Torii Hunter. He was told that there was no money left to bring him back, and suddenly they can sign Hamilton? Keep making stupid financial decisions, Arte. Quickest way to the bottom is to overvalue winning until your budget is so tight you can't move. |
| 116. By: Bellacaramella on 12-13-2012 19:54:17 Why the hell do you care how much Hamilton or any other player makes? Are you paying the bill? Isn't that the Angels' choice as to how much they are willing to spend and on what players? All you should give a damn about is who, not how much. It's none of your business how much the Angels spend. Yeesh. |
| 117. By: Paul Martin on 12-13-2012 19:59:07 @115 I didn't say other teams don't like our prospects, I said they are not highly valued, or in other words they don't value them as highly as we do. Somehow "wait until 2015" isn't much of a consolation prize. As a fan, this is very depressing and is getting old. |
| 118. By: DRWheelock on 12-13-2012 20:49:20 Interestingly, EVERY year I have been hearing everyone look to the future since the early years of the Bavasi era saying 2008-2010 are the years we will be competitive, ... Then it was 2010-2011, Then 2012 & 2013... Now we are hearing 2015. It reminds me so much like my 5 year old twins "trying" to understand the word "Tomorrow". They say "isn't it tomorrow yet? If tomorrow is not "Today" then "Tomorrow" never comes! They are ALWAYS waiting patiently for "Tomorrow", because they here that "Tomorrow" we will be going and doing something. Sadly, this Tomorrow thing is getting REALLY REALLY OLD as a Mariner Fan! I do love what Z has done to build one of the best farm systems in MLB though, and that is where his expertise is at...along with negotiating trades. But after this Hamilton Angel fiasco I truly believe that the ONLY WIN for the Mariner's at this point in this offseason is if they use some of these farm pieces to land Stanton from Florida. With all of hype about Stanton wanting out of town, then now is the time to pounce and give up a Bedard package for someone like Stanton. Stanton would be the future "face" of the franchise along with Felix. Z has to do this package now to consider this offseason a Win! |
| 119. By: Bellacaramella on 12-13-2012 20:51:07 @117, agreed. I don't care what model they use: Rays, Yankees, Giants, A's, home-grown talent, trades, free-agent mercenaries. Whatever. I'd like to see the Mariners be competitive. I hope they do something to improve the team this year. If the plan is to wait until 2015, there'll be a lot of sad folks in old Felix jerseys longing for the days when he was pitching for the Mariners. |
| 120. By: Paul Martin on 12-13-2012 20:55:28 @118 and @119 I couldn't agree with you guys more. However, Miami isn't going to trade Stanton. He is the face of their franchise, young, cheap, and under team control for A LONG time. If I am wrong, I would give them any prospects they wanted for him, no questions asked... |
| 121. By: baseballman on 12-13-2012 21:28:18 "I didn't say other teams don't like our prospects, I said they are not highly valued, or in other words they don't value them as highly as we do." And this is based off of...what exactly? |
| 122. By: rotoenquire on 12-13-2012 21:39:40 I think more like 2014. However When you look at how our prospects are looked at on a National Level Hultzen and Walker very from top 10 too top 15. Then Zunino and Franklin come in around 20-30 range. Paxton comes in around 50-60+. Finally B. Miller breaks the top 100 in some. That is 6 players in the TOP 100 not bad at all in the AL only the A's have more on average with 7. In the NL only Pit with 6 Ties the M's. So the M's have Talent that many teams would like and value. The question now becomes what could the M's get in a trade? |
| 123. By: Wishhiker on 12-13-2012 21:52:07 What, exactly, would Stanton cost? Anibel Sanchez seems to be the best free agent left. Got to figure Tex and LA are highly interested. Should the Ms focus there? I don't much like any route that seems to still be available for the offense. Another Outfielder, but my preferences are so slight between the cost to acquire any of the rest and what they bring (many things to consider). I've changed my mind several times on who would be the next best. Reasonably acquirable, that is. I'll take Trout, Stanton and Billy Hamilton if we're not being reasonable. Should we start talking about what backup scrap heap catcher has merit? A Jamie Moyer coaching fit? The material compounds going into the new fences? No the offseason isn't over yet. For a moment my thoughts went that way though. There's still plenty of ways to improve the team |
| 124. By: Paul Martin on 12-13-2012 22:20:16 @121 A great example of lack of value was the rumored trade with Pittsburg where the wanted T. Walker for a MLB fringe firstbaseman. Another is Arizona not being interested in our prospects in an Upton trade. Just the fact that no trade has been made for a bat should tell you something. If Jack is unable to trade Franklin or one of the big 3 for a bat by the start of the season, would you then agree with me? Based on Jacks recent interviews it sounds like other teams are not valuing our top prospects as much as we do because that don't have big league experience. He is giving the impression that he will have to hold onto them so they get that experience. That is why I said in post #114 that a big trade is unlikely. |
| 125. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-13-2012 23:05:32 Padres apparently out of the running if Edwin Jackson's price reaches 4-5 years or 12-13M. For effing sake he's just sitting there lol. Why the hell not at this point? He's not much below Sanchez really. |
| 126. By: thomas_matthew3 on 12-13-2012 23:38:02 Is there a chance or have you heard anything about the Mariners potentially going after the new free agents from Cuba, Cuban baseball players Dariel Alvarez (OF) and Aledmis Diaz (SS)? |
| 127. By: rjfrik on 12-14-2012 02:04:31 I guess my point was missed. I wasn't saying as of today that the 95 M's are a duplicate of today's club. What I was pointing out as that team was filled with home grown talent. Talent that across the board took 4, 5 and 6 years to develop into a championship caliber team. Edgar, Jr, Bone, Unit, those guys were five and six years deep into their careers until they won a division title. My point was to relax and be patient. Our top guys are 2 and 3 years into their current run. What happens in 2015 when they have had 4 plus years under their belt? My guess is they will be pretty dam good while the rest of the division is aging. The M's are set up for success from 2015-2020, no other team in the division is set up for that success. So sit back, enjoy the ride and reap the benefits in a few years. I know it's tough being patient, but trust that it will work out. This front office knows what it's doing. |
| 128. By: docsmith on 12-14-2012 05:24:00 @118...I've been saying 2014-2015 for awhile now....not just this year. It doesn't take adding too much projection to our young guys, subtracting Olivo/Figgins, getting whole years out of Jaso/Iwakuma, and a few games against the Astros to see us as a .500 baseball club. If things break our way, maybe even an 86-88 win club. But from truly contending? We are multiple, say 4-5, players away from truly contending. Some of those may be filled by young players getting better, or by players currently in the minors, but my point is, signing Josh Hamilton really wouldn't have done much for the Ms. We would have needed to sign Hamilton, Swisher and Bourne and maybe a SP. That team could contend. But it isn't happening. I am just trying to be realistic about where the Ms are at. We have a nice future ahead of us and I hope for a competative present. |
| 129. By: baseballman on 12-14-2012 08:05:16 RE 124: I'm sorry but those are two pretty bad examples. First off, no one really knows if Pitt actually asked for Walker, and even if they did how does that prove he's highly regarded? So a team asked for the moon in the beginning stages of a trade negotiation? Doesn't mean anything really. And Arizona, JAC has been saying for well over a year that the Mariners and the Diamonds don't matchup well in a two team trade. Not because we don't have good prospects but because we don't have the right ones. Arizona badly wanted a ML ready SS, we don't have one. We have stud pitching and Franklin who is still probably a year away. How does that mean they don't value our prospects? And you can't say 'well there hasn't been a trade so people think we have trash in the farm' (loosely paraphrased). It's the beginning of December! When did we trade for Bedard? Cliff Lee? Montero? All came in the middle of the month for January. How do you know there's not a trade in the works? Or that Jack doesn't't like what players are actually available to trade for? If there's no one worth actually trading for how can you conclude that no trades been done because teams don't like our prospects? |
| 130. By: rotoenquire on 12-14-2012 21:29:31 I do not think you can value what people think of our prospects based on if a trade is made or not? Depends on if it is a fit, if someone is offering a stud minor league SP and they want Franklin why would you make that deal? Does it make Franklin worth less? That argument doesn't hold water sorry. I will believe the experts and their rankings and not some odd notion of how our players are valued based on deals that may or may not exists. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
| Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |