|By Alex Carson||By 12-06-2012|
- Alex Carson
- Alex Carson
- Alex Carson
- Alex Carson
|1. By: rth1986 on 12-06-2012 07:47:42|
If the Mariners are willing to open their checkbooks, then I like the idea of signing both Hamilton and Swisher, if possible. That way, they can improve the offense while giving Smoak and Montero more development time. They also can hold onto their elite prospects.
Then they could consider trading Gutierrez to free a little payroll, and perhaps trade for or sign a low-cost starting pitcher and back-up catcher.
|2. By: masonb on 12-06-2012 07:51:56|
I'm not crazy about trading Walker either, unless it gets a Myers type talent back. If you could package Walker+Maurer, plus all the other pieces mentioned and get Myers and Holland back, I think you do it. It seems with all these pokers in the fire, that something awesome is about to happen.
Are we to expect a resolution on this today? As far as Grienke goes.
Also, another idea. I know Jason mentioned in the last update something along the lines of Montero perhaps being sent to NYY for Granderson. Although I think Granderson is a great player, I think that deal is dumb on so many levels. Any way Montero could perhaps get a SS like Cabrera or Tulowitzki back? Or am I reaching too high into the clouds.
|3. By: Alex Carson on 12-06-2012 08:10:09|
@masonb - I don't know. It's certainly possible. Greinke is the dominoe that needs to fall here I think. With only two teams (we think) bidding, it'd be nice if he'd make up his mind so the others can fall.
I somehow doubt he and his wallet care about jump starting the rest of the market, of course.
|4. By: rth1986 on 12-06-2012 08:18:46|
Could the Mariners perhaps land Holland and Choo in that four-team deal?
If Swisher or Hamilton go to Boston, I also wonder if the Mariners could swoop in and get Jacoby Ellsbury. Not sure what Boston would be demanding in return though.
|5. By: bhamhusky on 12-06-2012 08:59:32|
Help me out Alex. If Rangers prefer Grienke over Hamilton that means pitching over hitting. Sign Hamilton and no pitcher. I can see this pitcher, if not that pitcher. Or this hitter and if not that hitter. Are we sure they really want Hamilton or are they just trying to tie him up to keep from M's? Sounds like they want pitching not hitting.
|6. By: Ungnome on 12-06-2012 08:59:33|
I get the feeling that Z is weighing his options and using whatever leverage he has to gum up the works. The Mariners are the ones holding up the 4-way trade which means Z is in the drivers seat for the whole market. Z is setting up the pieces and right now, controlling the flow. I'm feeling confident that Z will bring in a couple very useful pieces.
|7. By: Alex Carson on 12-06-2012 08:59:50|
@rth1986 I don't think the M's would want to give up the prospects needed to get Holland and Choo in a four-way when there are other OF options on the free-agent market.
Also, it sounds like the Indians may be out of the deal. Appears, right now, that it-s a three way between Texas, Arizona and Tampa with a four-team version bringing in the Mariners.
|8. By: masonb on 12-06-2012 09:05:56|
Here's a question: Are the Rangers looking at the acquisitions of Upton and Hamilton as mutually exclusive of one another? Say Grienke signs in LA, and the Rangers trade for Upton. Does that still make Hamilton likely to come here? Or is it truly Grienke v Hamilton for the Rangers?
|9. By: Rudolf on 12-06-2012 09:10:37|
So our purpose in the 4-team trade is to spread our prospects around (making multiple teams happy) to ensure Texas gets Upton-- so we can sign Hamilton? That's some James Bond style action. And out of it we would receive Derek Holland + some stuff? If that is the case I hope that Taijuan Walker is not part of it. Perhaps I'm slighting Holland's value, but Walker seems like a high price to pay to help a competitor and land what appears to be a mid-rotation starter.
|10. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 09:32:58|
Holland doesn't do much for me. If he's part of a better deal, fine. But I'd rather go with Walker than take on Holland.
|11. By: masonb on 12-06-2012 09:36:37|
I highly highly doubt that if Walker is in the deal, it gets back just Holland. This whole concept of offer Walker to get Holland so that you can have a better chance at Hamilton is overblown I think. What's to stop a team like Boston from coming in and trumping the deal? I'd be willing to bet that if Walker is in the deal, Seattle's getting something really good back. Maybe in the 4 way deal they get Zobrist and Holland back. I dunno. Just speculating. Z isn't possibility that stupid to trade one, if not the best pitching prospect in the game for Holland.
|12. By: shemberry on 12-06-2012 09:36:53|
Is it possible that the M's would get Holland to flip him to KC for Myers?
|13. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 09:40:08|
|14. By: Alex Carson on 12-06-2012 09:45:10|
@shemberry - JAC and I speculated on just that last night. It's certainly a possibility given KC's desire to add a starter. Would make you wonder, though, why Kansas City is no longer in the four-way, though. Wouldn't they just give Texas Meyers for Holland?
|15. By: sexymarinersfan on 12-06-2012 09:46:10|
The only way Walker is dealt is if its for an impact player(s). Z doesn't move him for JUST Holland.
Doesn't it always seem like it comes down to one player every year on who is going to set the market? Lets go Greinke.
|16. By: Alex Carson on 12-06-2012 09:47:23|
@bhamhusky - I think Hamilton wants to stay in Texas and will sit around and wait to see if they want him back. He's comfortable there and doesn't appear to be upset that the team is trying for Upton/Greinke as first options.
|17. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 09:53:00|
Seattle's doing this all wrong. They should be working backwards instead of forward to obtain offense. They need a middle of the order bat, but the only one out there is Josh Hamilton. Though you might consider Swisher borderline in that profile, it can't be for much longer. It's Hamilton or it's not at all and it's going to take virtually all of the room left in their budget.
The value in free agent dollars this year is in pitching and I think the multi-year signing should be Edwin Jackson. Haren's already gone and Greinke's going to cost a fortune. A 4-5 year deal in the $55-65M range for a mid-rotation starter is perfectly reasonable for this team, particularly for his age 29-33 seasons with an avg fastball still near 94. With that in tow and the rest of the rotation locked, you can feel way more comfortable dealing from the big 4 surplus and getting your big bat that way. Plus, you save money vs a Hamilton signing.
|18. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 10:06:49|
ALSO, Jackson wasn't given a qualifying offer from what I could find. He wouldn't cost us our first round draft selection. Hamilton, Swisher and Bourn all would. We have pick #11. Only the top 10 are protected. Just something to think about.
|19. By: rth1986 on 12-06-2012 10:26:00|
Zobrist + Holland would be worthy of a deal featuring Walker, IMO. Zobrist would fit in incredibly well and Holland could be easily flipped if we decided not to keep him.
|20. By: Rudolf on 12-06-2012 10:27:58|
@#18: many of us like this approach. Sign a #2 starter, maybe Youkilis or ludwick on a short term deal, trade a pitcher, middle infielder , and bullpen arm for an outfielder, and continue to allow the young guys to develop without strapping ourselves to a future albatross. It appears the M's are feeling pressure to grab the fanbase's attention with clear offensive upgrades. Might not be the very best approach, or maybe it is. I just hope we don't ship off half the farm. That would be a desperation move.
|21. By: Docmilo on 12-06-2012 10:42:51|
With all the talk of Upton, doesn't it make sense for the Rangers to want to get younger? It's got to be a hoot the conversations going on with these guys. Dealing with GM's in your own division. Trying to improve in the most affordable manner while trying to make it harder on your rival GM.
|22. By: Gibbo on 12-06-2012 10:48:46|
@#20 I don't mind that theory either, they could probably get swisher and Jackson for the same money and have some flexibility. But another angle if we could get Hamilton at around 20-24 per year, trade away Vargas and then try sign Jackson and then trade for a cheaper upside bat.... Myers, Logan Morrison.... It would be a stretch but I think we need to aim for a slightly better number 2 pitcher we then just need a guy to fill the 5 spot until one of our young arms are ready.
Sign Hamilton and Jackson and trade away Kelly, Carp, Wells, Vargas and Paxton plus another non top 5 prospect, it would free up salary and keep most of our upside young core in place.
|23. By: Panhead55 on 12-06-2012 10:55:43|
Holland would be a very nice get. He took a step back last year, but has very good stuff. He gave up too many HRs last year, but a move from Arlington to Safeco would be just what the Dr ordered.
|24. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 11:13:25|
The issue with guys like Hamilton and Swisher is that they're both on the wrong side of 30 and both costly compared to potential benefit. That in combination of losing a 1st rounder in both player and bonus room is a hugely risky way to go. Jackson is as solid a bet as there is to reach his mark over a full length contract. From there you can obtain a big hitter via trade who isn't only cheaper, but is probably younger too. All that, AND you keep your draft pick, which has become the life-blood of this franchise over the years. Why wouldn't you take the path of least resistance if you can?
|25. By: maqman on 12-06-2012 11:22:30|
Holland, as is Choo, would be a one year rental and as is Choo is represented by the Boras Corporation. Those dogs are too ugly to hunt.
I hope everyone who wanted the M's to sign Bay three years ago aren't the same ones complaining about them doing it now.
The Texicans view on Hamilton should be our view, they know him better. Three years is fair, four years in an overpay and five years is just dumb. Options tied to performance are reasonable. Pretty much the same applies to the Yankees and Swisher, except he's not a MOTO bat.
Of course that's just my unprofessional opinion. You can ignore it if you prefer your's.
|26. By: Dregur on 12-06-2012 12:06:49|
That sort of doesn't make any sense. If you traded for a big hitter via trade, my guess is the Mariners would be losing two or three prospects they know about for a big bat. If they signed a big free agent, then going after a draft pick they know could be good, but don't really know how he would react in the minors/majors.
|27. By: Dregur on 12-06-2012 12:09:06|
Sorry meant to say "Then they would be losing a draft pick they know could be good, but don't really know how he would react in the minors/majors. It's a net loss of two prospects..."
|28. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 12:18:57|
You're not just losing a draft player. You're losing the bonus money with which to sign your crop as a whole and because it's your first pick, you're losing possibly half of your pool. That affects your entire draft, not just the best player you pick.
The idea is that the M's have a surplus. They've got a big four and it's not going to take that much more than one of them to pry a younger Swisher type bat away, and if you're looking at a younger Hamilton type, again, you're trading a couple high-end prospects (non-major leaguers) instead of putting all your free agent dollars in one basket. You get two producers instead of one, you leave room in the budget and you don't kill your draft. I think that's much better than getting one guy who is older, riskier and more costly.
|29. By: Dregur on 12-06-2012 12:23:46|
That still doesn't make any sense, since much of that pool would've probably gone to the first pick anyway.
|30. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 12:40:00|
Jonathan, that makes no sense at all.
First, the "wrong side of thirty" argument is completely incorrect. That they're in their thirties, doesn't suddenly make them a risk. Generally, when that term is used, it's applied to guy past 35. Name a single free agent that isn't a risk. If you aren't willing to take risks, then don't be a GM. They are paid to take risks. Certainly, they're calculated risks, but still risks.
Secondly, your bonus money argument is nonsensical. The use of bonus money works both ways. If Seattle has to spend more to sign their first round choice, it lowers the pool for the remaining draft picks. The only way to get additional bonus money is if you sign a player for less than slot money. If they don't sign their first round pick, they still lose the slot money and don't get to apply it to remaining picks.
|31. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 12:46:50|
Maybe, maybe not. Either way you lose flexibility twice over. All of your resources go to Josh Hamilton.
In the end it's a net loss of two prospects, but for two major leaguers who produce. You have to remember prospects are uncertainties too. I'd gladly trade Hultzen or Paxton for a bat to keep my draft and have to room to do more, not to mention that the headlining prospect you're trading would be replaced by Jackson who could step in immediately.
|32. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 12:52:46|
Hamilton is absolutely on the wrong side of 30 when you're considering the kind of contract it would take to sign him, i.e. something like 5-6 years, AAV 25 mil. Hamilton is 32 coming up and isn't that durable to begin with. It's a risk, but it's the only risk you get to take. You're putting all your eggs in one basket.
And the idea regarding the bonus pool is that you at least have the option to spread it around if you can or want.
|33. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 13:06:26|
Jonathan, perhaps you should keep up with the latest chatter. So far, nobody is offering Josh Hamilton 5-6 years, because of the risk. Do you get more credit if you spread money around but make less effective (safer) choices?
The loss of one first round draft choice is not going to topple the franchise. Some act as if it would doom the franchise for the next ten years. Unless they got as lucky the the Mike Trout pick and the Angels did, it's not typically a franchise changing pick. It if was a 1-5 pick, maybe. But, it's not.
Let me predict your reply. "But you at least have a chance to pick another Mike Trout". Options mean nothing, unless they produce results. Because you buy five scratch tickets, instead of four, typically means you saved yourself a $1, but you did have one more option to win.
|34. By: aerichner on 12-06-2012 13:10:14|
But you dont disregard what Hamilton can do the first 2-3 years of the deal because you're afraid of what will happen during the second half of the contract. He might decline, seems normal. Then again he might be a very useful DH. We dont know.
We also dont know that if we sign Hamilton this year and are competitive this season, that ownership will not approve another 15-20 million to add to the payroll. I think they're commited. They need to see the team get back to winning and he will help take pressure of our young guys. You wanted a MOTO bat? Here he is.
We can talk about trades for younger MOTO bats but the other team has to want to deal them AND has to want what we have. It's not THAT easy to make a deal for an Alex Gordon, Upton, Stanton, Myers etc etc etc and to me trading away the kids is step 3 in the plan. I'm sure Jack has tried to get one or many of those youngsters, but the other team has to want what we have.
1 - Build the farm system (check)
2 - Bring in established talent (trying right now)
3 - Trade the youngsters to fill the holes left to be a legitimate contender year in and year out (we'll see)
The market has set itself nicely for the M's. Now we'll have to see how much we have to overpay to make them commit to us and not sign a 1 year deal somewhere else.
|35. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 13:18:44|
Texas is not offering 5-6 years, per the latest chapter. That doesn't mean he's going to come to us for less. 5-6 years is what Hamilton is looking for, for better or worse, and chances are that's what it would take for SEATTLE to sign him. We're at a disadvantage there: losing culture, long travel, tough park, uprooting his life and family, etc. It doesn't matter what Texas or anyone else would offer, it comes down to what WE have to give. I think if we can get two players that add up to more production combined for less money then that ought to be the way to go. There's no sense in hamstringing all the room we have in the budget, plus one draft, to get one guy, especially since he's not the difference between the cellar and the playoffs anyway.
|36. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 13:31:10|
Well exactly, they'd have to raise their payroll higher. Hamilton would be great even with the risk and we'd get to keep the prospects we have, but we'd still need more, which means they'd have to be willing to spend more. Hamilton alone, even at the pace of the last few years, isn't going to push us to the top. It's just my opinion that the pieces are out there that could add up to more than what Hamilton can give for equal or less money and less long-term risk.
|37. By: rjfrik on 12-06-2012 13:55:43|
Hamilton is a star player with at least 3 good years if not 4 left in him in my opinion. He is the ONLY player you would punt your 1st round pick for. Bourne, Swisher, any other secondary FA hitter is not worth losing the pick. Bourne and Swisher will both be huge busts compared to their years and salaries demanded after two years. It will be Chone Figgins all over again.
Go get Hamilton. If that doesn't work, make a trade and sign a has been or two like Ibanez. That's about all the M's can do that is rational. Signing Swisher or Bourne is highly irrational and would be a huge sign of desperation. Thank god neither really wants to come to Seattle.
|38. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 14:07:03|
If what's up there is true, and Hamilton takes our three year offer, I'm good with that. Those are at least prime years.
|39. By: Wishhiker on 12-06-2012 14:07:36|
There is a factor missing from the debate between Hamilton for cash and #12, vs. Trade bat who will still probably be $8 million + for 2+ prospects. Those prospects represent the possibility of saving money the next few years by not having to spend for SS(Franklin), SP or whatever position they trade from. The chances of having a Franklin, Paxton or Walker (whoever gets traded) having All-Star production for peanuts appear higher to me in aggregate than a particular #12 pick doing the same. And the pick would likely be 3+ years later if it panned out. Surplus on the 25 man with the team needing that one piece to improve is when I'd do that. Right now it seems to me that Hamilton costs less overall than, say, Butler. He's also a better fit.
|40. By: Stoiz on 12-06-2012 14:14:18|
I must be wrong here but I thought the new CBA was the end of giving up draft picks? I thought that if you tender a player you still receive a comp round pick, but the team that signs him no longer loses a pick. Am I off base? That would impact a Hamilton signing. Of course getting him at 3 years would be a heck of a deal and perhaps worth losing a pick anyway.
|41. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 14:23:47|
No, draft picks are still awarded for Type A Free Agents. The structure has changed for what classifies at a Type A, but the concept still exists. Supplemental picks are added at the end of rounds for the other type Free Agents.
|42. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 14:24:59|
Good points, Wishhiker.
|43. By: baseballman on 12-06-2012 14:59:43|
So our 12 isn't protected in the new CBA?
|44. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 15:00:51|
No, only the first ten picks in the draft are protected.
|45. By: masonb on 12-06-2012 15:12:03|
To me if it takes 5 years to get Hamilton at perhaps a lower annual cost 20-23, you do it without hesitation provided there's a clause in the contract that the deal would be voided if he has any kind of relapse. Like Wishhiker said above, in the long run, it costs more to trade prospects and lose out on their cost controlled years and have a big salary guy like Hamilton than have to trade those guys and pay market rate for their replacements. You look at it as an overall cost thing, not a per player thing. If he gives you 3 really awesome years and 2 mediocre ones, so what? He gets the ball rolling in a very positive way towards contention. I think if the deal starts going +5 years, you walk away and visit the Swisher possibility.
The thing that's a debate in my own mind, is would I rather Texas have Hamilton for the next 4-5 years, or have Upton+Grienke? Honestly, I'd rather them do the former, but I guess you can't worry too much about what other organzations are doing when you have enough problems of your own to deal with.
|46. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-06-2012 15:18:00|
I just don't believe that it will cost more than a package fronting one of the four pitching prospects to find a bat, particularly if it's a guy like Hultzen. And we can't just assume any prospects we deal are going to become productive major leaguers. Most do not, regardless of where they are on the ladder. If the M's can choose to deal 1 or 2 of them for a proven hitter, why not do it while they have such a surplus? Two productive major league players is better than just Hamilton and maybe they even save some money.
But if Hamilton signs for just his prime years, I'm okay with that. I would just hate to see us strung up down the road.
|47. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 15:21:27|
I'd go 3 yrs guaranteed, with two mutual option years.
|48. By: bhamhusky on 12-06-2012 15:56:32|
I think players that base their game on speed after 30 are more risk. Power players, hitters not so much of a risk.
|49. By: baseballfan on 12-06-2012 16:56:18|
Actually, there are no longer type A or B free agents - A team has to make a qualifying offer to their FA(avg. of top 125 salary - this year it's about 12.5mil) and the player had to have spent the entre year with the team - if the player signs with another team, his previous team gets a sandwich pick between 1st & 2nd rd. (only 1 pick) - the signing team loses their top pick (top ten picks protected)but it's not awarded to any team, the number of picks in the round simply shrinks.
|50. By: sexymarinersfan on 12-06-2012 17:05:03|
Per JAC, via tweet: "@ProspectInsider: Source from rival team thinks Seattle is probably closer on a trade than signing a big name FA. If true, interesting."
|51. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 17:06:26|
baseballfan, thanks for the clarification. I tried to keep my reply simple, relating it back to the old agreement. I didn't want to get too complex.
|52. By: rotoenquire on 12-06-2012 17:10:28|
If the M's do not go after a player who had a qualifying offer. I am just putting his name out there. Colin Moran 3B NC is a bat I would like too see the M's nab. I did this about this time last year for Zunino. I like Moran just as much as I did Zunino last year.
|53. By: Edman on 12-06-2012 17:17:27|
A long way to go before we need to worry about that, roto. Lots of things will change before we get there.
|54. By: rjfrik on 12-06-2012 17:22:08|
true that Edman.
|55. By: marinermutt on 12-06-2012 17:22:09|
I tend to agree with Jonathan regarding Hamilton. Maybe a 3 year contract but I wouldn't do 5 plus years. The problem is Jack needs to make a splash. Not only for his job but we are losing fans left and right. A Hamilton signing has the potential to create some "good" buzz for the team. At potential jump in season tickets?
Maybe Jack's job is safe, but I tend to believe he is on the hot seat. It is his players out on the field for the most part and they are not performing. Last place doesn't cut it year after year. And I like Jack. Love how he has upgraded our minor league system. But the results at Safeco are what count the most.
|56. By: Juan Valdez on 12-06-2012 19:52:29|
A three year contract for Hamilton would be ideal, even with a little bit higher AAV. I worry though that if we don't offer four years, that other teams might jump in at that point. But yeah, three years would be awesome.
Overall though, I would rather they were going after Swisher and then trading for Wil Myers.
|57. By: on 12-06-2012 20:23:11|
I wasn't saying there should be 100% expectations placed on any player the Ms might trade away. I was only saying that the chances of any (all in aggregate) of those have to be better than a #12 pick. It's just the lotto value in comparison to the #12 pick. I'm not saying Walker (eg.) is an ace in 3 years. I am saying there's a better chance of that than a#12 being comparable in the same timeline. Nobody seems to think Walker alone will get what's needed, so add in some more chances until some of the "3 of our top ten prospect" trades just sound like an extreme overpay. Nobody is talking about #9 or ten, so really it's been 3 of our top 8 that I don't like any bit of. The $ and pick are factors for a top free agent. The club controlled assets leaving and coming in (including length and $ amount under contract for all) are all factors in a trade. I was just saying not to forget what replacing Walker can cost down the line.
Nobody should expect young players to always perform right out of the gate. Even the ones that do often have a sophomore slump. Year 3 is getting closer to 2000 AB which is a better time to make those decisions than after 400-1000 that a lot of the Ms presently have. Go look at early years of All-Stars, they're pretty less often than they look like 2012 Ms #s.
The age 27 breakout is fairly common. People shouldn't have to wait that long for Montero, but why do so many think "he is what he is" at 22? Others are 24, 25 and 26 and getting the same treatment. I'm not saying they're good as is, just saying ballplayers need time to put it together. It's quite likely the bats already here are improved next season from experience and figuring things out. Maybe, with Ackley and Ryan, by not having a pertinent joint injury nagging them all year.
I don't like 6 years myself. How about 5/$115million? Or 4/$100? 3 guaranteed with up to 3 more based on plate appearances?
|58. By: rjfrik on 12-06-2012 21:07:59|
Anyone giving up on Montero now or thinks "he is what he is" after only one full year in the bigs is asinine, an absolute Loon.
Montero is going to be a Fantastic hitter, most likely our best hitter for a very long time after next year. He can rake.
|59. By: VikingArthur on 12-06-2012 21:42:43|
If we could get Hamilton for 3 years...I don't even care about the number of dollars. I'd go 3 years up to 75-80 (with games played incentives perhaps) million... huge yearly value but it would be worth it if it kept us out of a long term contract with him. He would make a huge difference in the middle of the lineup. You get him and make some sort of trade to get another league average bat at 1b or CF and you have a decent lineup (assuming the progressions happen with the young guys).
|60. By: Rudolf on 12-06-2012 22:14:31|
Now I know the reports link the M's to a three year deal (with Hamilton taking us seriously), but THREE YEARS? Come on! Saturday morning fraternity carpet passes the sniff test before that does.
If we get Hamilton @ 4/100 I would be floored, and @ 5/125 I would be surprised. To think Josh Hamilton would be forced to take a 3/70 offer borders on insane.
|61. By: VikingArthur on 12-06-2012 23:29:10|
Yeah... I guess that is my point. If he is willing to come here for 3 years I really don't care what the dollar amount is, it is a near no-brainer.
|62. By: Docmilo on 12-07-2012 07:28:41|
Hamilton is going to get 4 plus an option minimum. It's all about the Wilson's (The President on the $100,000 gold certificate). Shorter contracts cost more money? Don't be surprised if it doesn't take 4/120 plus an option to bring Hamilton to Seattle.
I think the M's need to bring this guy in and give Seager, Ackley, Smoak, Montero, Saunders, Gutirrez and Jaso one more year to come along. These kids played .520 ball in the 2nd half and were 5th in scoring runs on the road with the deadwood of Figgins for a month, Olivo for a couple of months and Ichiro for over half a season.
Clearing the 880ish ABs from Ichiro, Figgins and Olivo and this club has already improved going into 2013. The M's competing in 2013 would take luck regardless who they bring in. 2014 should be the real window. Keep our kids for now. If this team is surprising, then you have trade chips at the trade deadline to make the moves that need to be made. Holding their chips for three months into next season isn't going to reduce the value of any of the prospects. If anything, more of the M's prospects are going to show things at higher levels and establish more value.
Sign Hamilton, be patient and see what happens.
|63. By: Panhead55 on 12-07-2012 07:49:25|
Doc, I agree with your post. If Hamilton could be had for 3/$75 there would be lots of suitors, who to date are waiting on the sidelines. I think your estimate is close to the final contract.
I'd like to see the Ms quietly bid up the price of Greinke. If on the slight chance Greinke choses the Ms, I could live with Felix and Greinke at the front of our rotation. The more likely scenario though would be that we drive up the price tag for Greinke, and if he chooses Texas as is expected, then his elevated cost completely rules out a Texas and Hamiton reunion.
|64. By: VikingArthur on 12-07-2012 09:05:14|
Hamilton for 4/100 would be fine as well. No complaints there. We have not had an offensive player in his stratosphere in a LONG LONG time.
As for Greinke? No way. He'll sign in Texas. Bidding up the cost is not going to accomplish much. I wouldn't give Greinke 5 years 90 million... I think he is vastly overrated and again, we have had two ace pitchers (Lee being much much better) and it got us nowhere.
|65. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-07-2012 09:25:17|
All more reasons for them to strongly consider Jackson. He's 29 with his peripherals trending in the right direction, his arm is still pumping gas and he's been at or near 200 IP in each of the past 4 years. Either way they're going to have to sign some arm, somewhere, unless we're all cool with Beavan soaking up the first 15 starts of the year. And I think we all know the likelihood that Vargas won't be around much longer either.
The biggest point I was trying to make is that they need more than one guy. Hamilton isn't going to turn this team around by himself and we still have holes in various other places. The rotation absolutely could use another solid arm as none of the prospects are ready anyway, then at least you still have another 10-12M to play with on top of your prospect surplus.
I get that we need the big bat, but we also need more, so if the team is that serious about contending this year, it will have to get creative. Signing Hamilton alone won't do it and in fact, without much room left in the budget after, they may be forced to trade prospects for more anyway.
|66. By: Docmilo on 12-07-2012 09:40:27|
Sure, this team needs more. But why don't we get the big bat now, see what we have and let our kids grow more value in AAA this year? If this team is rocking, trade kids at the deadline to fill in spots we really know we need. If Smoak and Montero comes out gangbusters and we spent our cookies on a replacement for 1B/DH then we lost our cookies.
The biggest glaring hole on this roster right now is a RF power bat. Hamilton is the best choice. I would be happy with Swisher if Hamilton chooses another deal. However, I won't be happy with Swisher on an overpay. I would prefer the M's go with Wells in RF before they sign Swisher to a 5/90 contract. Just me.
The pitching is just fine. Could it be better? Absolutely. I just don't have an issue for now going with:
Those guys will get us to June/July. If Paxton, Maurer or Hultzen is rocking it in Tacoma, then they can come up and fill a spot. If not, we can make deals then.
There is no rush to trade away our top prospects unless the deal is an absolutely no brainer.
|67. By: VikingArthur on 12-07-2012 09:45:30|
Yeah...I don't really see the need for a big name SP signing at all. It would be one thing if we were an arm away from winning 90 games but we are not. I'd rather stand pat from a starting pitching standpoint and add one big FA bat (Hamilton) and then trade one of the big three and some other prospects for a young bat.
|68. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-07-2012 10:14:28|
That rotation isn't great behind Felix. There's upside, but you're also talking about two guys who have started for only half a year each in the majors, a fly-ball lefty who doesn't miss bats and may get more exposed with the new fences and replacement-level 5th starter. If you are competing this year, 2013, that needs to be better. And Edwin Jackson isn't a big name signing. He's a mid-rotation horse we'd rely on to give us quality innings. That's a 3-4 win upgrade over Beavan right there for probably half the cost. At least then you haven't sacrificed picks or prospects yet and you have the room to maneuver to add another 4-5 win bat.
You sign Hamilton, you probably have to trade your prospects to get more if you're competing this year. Then you're out all your budget room, prospects, and your draft pick while relying on the pitching prospects you have left to reach their potential. That's a lot that has to go right.
|69. By: VikingArthur on 12-07-2012 10:35:29|
I don't think any of us think that the Mariners are serious contenders in 2013 regardless of what they do in terms of acquisitions. It is about being respectable in 2013 with an eye to 2014.
|70. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 10:45:02|
I love the idea of signing Edwin Jackson, irrespective of what happens with the bats. He's a quality middle of the rotation starter.
More likely, I see a Jackson signing happening if the M's miss on Hamilton. A miss on Hamilton should mean that they go hard after Nick Swisher. A Swisher contract, whatever it turns out to be, should leave them enough room to go after another significant piece, like Edwin Jackson. I wouldn't touch Michael Bourn with a ten foot pole.
Of course, you could also make the argument that the Mariners' self-imposed salary cap of $95-100 million is bogus. If I'm not mistaken, they had a budget north of $115 million as recently as 2008. I feel the need to mention that even though it's basically just spitting in the wind.
|71. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 10:48:58|
Just a quick edit: I should have said that I don't see a Jackson signing happening unless the M's miss on Hamilton. Phrasing it that way makes my point a little clearer. Basically, if we miss on Hamilton, the question becomes, how do you best distribute your resources across multiple needs? That's the scenario where I could see them looking harder at someone like Edwin Jackson.
|72. By: Edman on 12-07-2012 10:56:00|
There is a reason that Edwin Jackson has been with more MLB teams than he has years of service. No thanks. I don't care how good his numbers are, he's not a guy you build around.
|73. By: masonb on 12-07-2012 10:59:43|
Yeah, I think the "self-imposed salary cap" thing is BS. Why would management tip its hand to all the agents and other teams out there? I think that that's probably a target number, but if they know they can make an improvment and it means going over that number, I'm willing to bet that do it. Just my opinion. Jason's even reiterated that many times: that no one truly knows what the payroll limit is, and if anything else, we've gotten indications that they are getting more serious this year because their jobs are potentially on the line. If anything, that makes it more likely they'll spend the money.
|74. By: Alpha Blu on 12-07-2012 11:00:19|
In Juan's scenario (or any other realistic scenario for that matter), we're not building around Jackson. We would simply sign him to stabilize our rotation and give our young pitching time to mature before rushing them to the show.
|75. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 11:11:06|
Yep, Jackson is a nice complimentary piece, which is pretty much the definition of a mid-rotation starter. I see Nick Swisher much the same way.
|76. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 11:14:32|
I think, given Hamilton's preference to stay in Texas and the Yankees all of a sudden sniffing around, I would step up talks with Swisher right now, if only to put more pressure on Hamilton.
|77. By: maqman on 12-07-2012 11:31:11|
Edman I know Jackson has not stuck anywhere and I don't know why that is but he produces good results. I'd give him a three year deal as long as there is no no-trade clause and the AAV is reasonable. If our kids stick around and produce he will be easy to trade I would think.
Earlier I posted that Holland would be a one year rental as I thought I had seen that someplace. On checking Cot's Contracts I saw he is signed for several more years at a reasonable price. My bad.
|78. By: Docmilo on 12-07-2012 11:31:52|
It's Swisher's agent putting out the M's low bid and the Yankees interest. I bet Juan Valdez is really Swisher's agent. LOL
|79. By: VikingArthur on 12-07-2012 11:37:27|
I would not sign Swisher or Bourn for anything remotely close to what their "value" in this market is. They are slugs like Spezio, Figgins, etc. If you are going to spend money... it should be on a GREAT player, not a merely good player. Edwin Jackson is decent. Fister is better (had to throw that one in). Felix, Vargas, Iwakuma, Ramirez, Beavan/Hultzen, etc is fine with our defense and bullpen as long as the offense is league average.
|80. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 11:38:10|
I wish. I actually work at Microsoft. I'm pretty much getting nothing done today either. I keep flipping from one blog to the next to mlbtr and then twitter and then the Seattle Times. Very unproductive.
|81. By: Edman on 12-07-2012 12:07:38|
maqman, would you hire someone with a track record of having to move on to a new job every year? It either means they can't commit, or that they wear out their welcome. In baseball terms, it usually means he's not a good teammate. You don't see Washington rushing to sign him.
Results aren't everything. They're important, but so is being part of a team.
|82. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 12:26:45|
Edman, you're really reaching on that one dude. That is one seriously bad argument you're trying to make.
|83. By: k0o56 on 12-07-2012 12:50:42|
#80 I'm in the same boat as you. With all the info flying around yesterday, I hardly got anything done at work.
#81 That might be a little unfair. Glancing over his movement, it seems that he was more valuable as a trade chip in the years he moved around. Cliff Lee served the same purpose for us. I haven't heard anything about him being a cancer in the clubhouse or anything of that nature. Seems like last year was the first time he had an actual say in his destination when he signed a one-year deal with Washington.
|84. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 13:46:39|
This is blowing up twitter. No idea if it's credible or not.
@MLBSportsReport: BREAKING: #Mariners and Josh Hamilton have agreed to a 6 year $135M contract.
|85. By: Edman on 12-07-2012 14:05:18|
If it had any legs to it, it would be all over the internet by now.
|86. By: slamcactus on 12-07-2012 14:07:01|
" would you hire someone with a track record of having to move on to a new job every year? It either means they can't commit, or that they wear out their welcome. In baseball terms, it usually means he's not a good teammate. You don't see Washington rushing to sign him."
That's pretty silly. I've never seen any indication that Jackson's trade history is a reflection of his character. The Rays traded him at a time when his ERA looked a lot better than his peripherals, and got good value back. The Tigers traded him to go younger and cheaper. He was traded by the blue jays because they were out of contention and could get value for trading a guy near the end of his controlled years who was good enough to help a contending team.
Jackson's been traded a bunch of times because he's good enough to improve pretty much every rotation in baseball, but not quite good enough to slap an untouchable label on. He had multi year offers last offseason, but specifically sought a 1 year deal to up his value.
Nobody's saying pay him ace money. The last time he was considered a potential ace was sometime around 2003. There's nothing wrong with offering him 3-4 years at something like 12-15 million, though.
And if you're really going with the judging-from-afar/clubhouse chemistry argument, his last 2 teams seemed to do just fine with him in the dugout.
|87. By: Juan Valdez on 12-07-2012 14:07:06|
Wouldn't be the first time that twitter has burned me. Damn you twitter!!!
|88. By: jgthompson21 on 12-07-2012 14:23:00|
Ya.. That isn't a legit story. He also tweeted that Josh Smith was traded from Atlanta Hawks to Lakers. But the twitter account he referenced isn't a real Josh Smith twitter handle.
Dude is causing drama
|89. By: d2ret on 12-07-2012 14:45:30|
No! I just confirmed my season tickets!
|90. By: d2ret on 12-07-2012 14:50:45|
I agree. Get Hamilton AND Edwin Jackson.
Vargas will regress or get traded. Beavan is not ready to be our no.2 starter yet (tongue in cheek)
Ramirez/Iwakuma I like, but VERY inexperienced
Hultzen/Maurer/Paxton emmerge, you have more assets and reassurance....DUH
|91. By: John_S on 12-07-2012 14:52:32|
In regards to Edwin Jackson
Traded from LA to TB for Danny Baez and Lance Carter during a LA's pennant chase. Granted he did not develop yet as a pitcher
Traded from TB to Detroit for Matt Joyce - Rays had a surplus of arms and needed a hitter
Traded from Detroit to AZ in three team that netted Detroit Austin Jackson, Max Scherzer, Phil Coke and Daniel Schlereth
Traded to from AZ to Chi for Daniel Hudson and David Holmberg down the stretch while Chicago was in playoff contention
Traded from Chi to St Louis for Mark Teahen for Jason Frasor and Zach Stewart
Signed one year deal with Washington - 2013 Was SP's are Strasburg, Gio Gonzales, Zimmerman, Haren and Detweiler.
Has he played for a bunch of teams? Yes. Instead of implying that he hasn't stayed in one place for more than a year or two because of character issues could it be because he was coveted by the other team? Yes
That's not to say that he is a premier pitcher but he is an above average pitcher who will deliver innings.
|92. By: d2ret on 12-07-2012 14:57:25|
ADD talent and assets. Thats the game. You are still building a long term winner, but those pieces can greatly assist or to use Jacks word, augment what you already have.
Its not as if that contract (Jackson) is going to get you in trouble short, or long term.
Figgins and Guttirez come off the books after this year as well.
McCarthy going to AZ. Darn. Hes the pitcher I wanted. But there are still others!
|93. By: slamcactus on 12-07-2012 14:58:48|
And obviously by blue jays I meant white sox. Headsmack.
|94. By: John_S on 12-07-2012 14:59:07|
Here's a quote from his former teammateVerlander from when Edwin Jackson threw his no-hitter for AZ
"I couldn't be more happy for the guy," Verlander said. "Great guy and a good teammate. I'm happy to see him go out there and have something like that, especially because he's had some tough-luck losses this year. It's nice to be able to go out there and be on the other side of one."
|95. By: Marlin Man on 12-07-2012 15:42:13|
So do you guys REALLY believe Z is gonna sign Hamilton, or BOurn????? Come on boys, put some thought into, where Z has been and where he hopesa to go. He will NOT Sign these two, it is all for "show" to show us how hard he is working to "try and make such things happen"-- then he can go back to HQ and bullshit his lackeys into believing how "lucky" they were to be able to bullsit the Fans, and still get away with it.
It's all a big cake walk, and made to last 2 maybe 3 more years (while lower minors types, MAY, just MAY arise), at no expense- if it does- so be it- if not- time to move to next gig
YOU think not? than YOU is the stupid one Edman
|96. By: Edman on 12-07-2012 15:56:12|
Marlin Man, have you turned into dewey, or are you Jarjar Binks? There's more broken english in your post than a typewriter with missing keys.
Why you think I give a damn about a tired old rant, is beyond me.
|97. By: Marlin Man on 12-07-2012 16:40:33|
|98. By: Edman on 12-07-2012 18:14:18|
|Copyright 2013 Prospect Insider, Inc. | Created by AQ Central|
Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome