Winter Moves Begin

Dave · November 12, 2007 at 12:02 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Now that we’re starting to get to the end of the 15 day exclusive negotiating period and teams had the chance to talk at the GM meetings last week, the offseason is slowly kicking into gear with a few minor moves. Here’s a quick recap of what’s happened so far.

Boston re-signed Curt Schilling to a one year deal.

Schilling takes far less money to stay in Boston than he could have gotten on the free market. On top of all the other built in advantages the Red Sox have, they’ve also now established an environment that encourages quality players to take below market deals to play in the city. They’re going to be contenders for a long, long time.

Philadelphia acquires Brad Lidge for three replaceable parts.

Pat Gillick makes a pretty terrific move here, picking up a valuable bullpen arm for a trio of role players. As long as Lidge doesn’t tank in 2008, the Phillies are going to be in a position to get a quality relief season, then cash in with compensatory draft picks for letting him walk as a free agent next winter, and those draft picks will likely be more valuable than the middling prospects they gave up to get Lidge in the first place. New Astros GM Ed Wade gets off to a bad start – not that I had much hope for that franchise after they hired him to begin with.

Detroit acquires Jacque Jones for Omar Infante.

Remember when Jon Paul Morosi was speculating that the Tigers would give up some real talent for Raul Ibanez? Nope – they’re smarter than that. Instead, they bought low on the always underrated Jacque Jones. He’s not the same caliber of hitter that Ibanez is, but his defense makes up for 90% of the difference. When all you’re giving up is Omar Infante for a quality left-fielder, the price is definitely right. The Cubs didn’t necessarily need Jones, but they don’t need Infante either, so this was basically a money dump for Chicago.

Comments

81 Responses to “Winter Moves Begin”

  1. joser on November 12th, 2007 10:17 pm

    On the surface at least, it looked to me like the Phillies gave up guys at positions they either have or are likely about to have gaping holes at, while the Astros potentially filled two needs on their end

    The Phillies filled two needs on their end. In an earlier thread I quoted a bit from the NY Post:

    The general feeling was that the Phillies won their trade for Lidge. There was concern if Lidge could handle the small park in Philadelphia and the hostile fan base. But this was about more than Lidge’s great stuff and the tepid package sent back to Houston. This was about the Phillies being able to put Brett Myers back in the rotation where he projects to a 200-inning, 12-15-win man.

    “They solved two spots,” an AL executive said. “You can look at it as Philadelphia just got the best free-agent starter in the market.”

    I would think that the Yankees would at least consider it. Plus, they don’t need Damon.

    The M’s don’t need Damon either. The already have more outfielders than they know what to do with, and several of them are cheaper and/or better.

    Bavasi has no intentions of trading Sexson and Ibanez they’re “proven veterans” look for Jones to go before either of them.

    So when did Bavasi tell you this? Or is it some kind of magical telepathic ability you have? Certainly Raul “face of the franchise” doesn’t look to be going anywhere, but I see no reason to be so certain about Sexson.

  2. jlc on November 12th, 2007 11:00 pm

    40 – I would think the untouchable would be Ichiro.

  3. Mo Vaughn Is My Hero on November 12th, 2007 11:02 pm

    34. But I thought Clement and Jones and Felix were all untouchables?

  4. Wishhiker on November 12th, 2007 11:28 pm

    52 I recall him saying that, maybe incorrectly…here’s something from Bakers Blog July 31st:

    http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/mariners/2007/07/bavasi_on_deadline.html

    “Bavasi indicated that the club formed a list of players considered pretty much untouchable and that Jones and Jeff Clement were on it.:

    Sorry about the link, but there was a list here on how to do tags and I memorized it, then there was quicktags and I forgot, now…

  5. Wishhiker on November 12th, 2007 11:30 pm

    Thought I was stopping the post…double posts: not good…

  6. stevie_j13 on November 12th, 2007 11:35 pm

    The move I suggested wasn’t to “go after Damon” because Damon is an overpaid outfielder. But, to get rid of Sexson, it is likely that the M’s would have to take on salary from someone else. Damon is an upgrade over Ibanez in left (right?) and a left-handed bat that can still get on base and steal 20. That’s a substantial upgrade over Sexson, which I think would be worth it for the extra year of crappy salary. Plus, the draft picks would be better when he leaves, and he fits into the “proven veteran” mold that Bavasi salivates over.

  7. Mat on November 12th, 2007 11:51 pm

    The Phillies filled two needs on their end. In an earlier thread I quoted a bit from the NY Post:

    That’s flawed reasoning. Myers was going to fill a need in the bullpen or a need in the starting rotation. There was only one need in the first place, and Lidge addressed one of those needs.

    It’s almost as bad as the old “getting a guy off the DL is like making a mid-season trade” line of BS.

  8. Wishhiker on November 13th, 2007 12:18 am

    49…total Brainfart…Some of the same is true of the trades, but Gillick was a few months off from having the RJ opportunity. It’s still a good comparison of what two Past Aces brought back. I guess I just can’t comprehend Woodward pulling off that coup. My mind won’t accept that it was him. So the Gillick Star Trade we’re talking about may have inadvertently led to a part of the reason the Garcia trade included the players it did. Nah, if I can blame Gillicks trade (Tomko/Davis)for Bavasi’s failure I can blame the Stupid trade of Varitek before the failure of Ben Davis (obviously might never have been acquired otherwise)for going after Olivo.

    I honestly don’t know who got the better in the Griffey/Cameron/Tomko/Myers/Perez deal, but Cameron was great to watch. We got a compensatory pick for Cameron, does Gillick get credit for that? We got a compensatory pick for Timlin, who was that again…W/E

    Anyway, I guess in hindsight The R.J. trade redeemed Woodward a little for the Cruz/Varitek/Lowe 97 bad idea fest. I admit I never missed Cruz’ defense though…maybe with Ibanez now…

  9. Wishhiker on November 13th, 2007 12:31 am

    Garciaparra…That’s who we have still from the Cruz trade…

  10. fetish on November 13th, 2007 12:40 am

    Can we get a “The Market” post? I keep seeing ” had a year considering he makes million dollars.”

    But seeing as how salaries (in my mind) seem to be escalating at an ever increasing rate, I’ve got no idea what’s the price for an “average” player at various positions.

  11. terry on November 13th, 2007 7:54 am

    That’s flawed reasoning. Myers was going to fill a need in the bullpen or a need in the starting rotation. There was only one need in the first place, and Lidge addressed one of those needs.

    It’s almost as bad as the old “getting a guy off the DL is like making a mid-season trade” line of BS.

    Basically the addition of Lidge provides an arm with a skill set that should translate into similar production as Myers in high leverage relief situations. This allows the Phillies to then leverage Myers’ skill set to a much greater degree by moving him to the rotation. While it’s true that Myers would’ve filled a need without Lidge, the ability to leverage Myers to a greater extent does represent additional value IMHO.

  12. Steve Nelson on November 13th, 2007 8:10 am

    #58: We got a compensatory pick for Cameron, does Gillick get credit for that?

    No compensatory pick for Cameron. Gillick decided not to offer Cameron arbitration.

  13. msb on November 13th, 2007 8:16 am

    I’d pay to see a throwing contest from LF & RF between Raul & Damon …

  14. Mr. Egaas on November 13th, 2007 8:39 am

    “When Grown Men Throw Like Girls”… coming to a theater near you.

  15. Steve Nelson on November 13th, 2007 9:00 am

    #58 Anyway, I guess in hindsight The R.J. trade redeemed Woodward a little for the Cruz/Varitek/Lowe 97 bad idea fest.

    Not really. Woodward’s first deal for RJ was with the Dodgers, straight up for Wilton Guerrero and Ismael Valdez. The only reason that deal didn’t go through is because some influential members of the ownership group decided they weren’t quite yet ready to see RJ dealt. They didn’t object to the deal itself as not worth enough; they just didn’t think the Ms should be trading RJ. Within a month they obviously changed their minds.

    Then Woody overplayed his hand, and the Yankees strung him out to the last hours before the trade deadline. The Yankees objective really seemed to be to keep the Mariners from completing a deal with Cleveland, and they succeeded. When they Yankees told Woodward they weren’t going to deal for Randy after all, hours before the trade deadline, the Houston deal was the only offer still left on the table.

    I don’t think you can give Woodward credit for making a “good deal” when that good deal was only his third or fourth choice, and he was unable to recognize that the choice he ranked worst was actually the best.

  16. david h on November 13th, 2007 9:37 am

    #61 – that’s still not added value. They could have added that value my moving Myers to the rotation regardless. The only thing preventing that was sheer stupidity.

  17. smb on November 13th, 2007 10:03 am

    BEARMAN,

    I have to know…are you in insider, Bavasi’s illegitimate son or somesuch, or do you just “know” in the cosmic sense what he will or will not do? No offense, just asking. The way you phrase things make it seem you have an in.

  18. smb on November 13th, 2007 10:05 am

    64:

    “Brokeback Outfield”

  19. PositivePaul on November 13th, 2007 10:09 am

    I’d pay to see a throwing contest from LF & RF between Raul & Damon

    Why?

    Raul would win in a landslide. His problem isn’t his throwing arm, it’s his range. His arm is still solid, if not good. Damon’s, of course, is probably worse than my 6-year-old’s…

  20. msb on November 13th, 2007 10:23 am

    Raul would win in a landslide. His problem isn’t his throwing arm, it’s his range. His arm is still solid, if not good. Damon’s, of course, is probably worse than my 6-year-old’s…

    could we put them both out there? Johnny to run it down, Raul to throw it in? 🙂

    FWIW, Damon can be traded to only 12 teams without his permission, and prefers to stay on the East Coast, or maybe the Midwest…

  21. Steve Nelson on November 13th, 2007 10:37 am

    The OF throwing contest to see would be Randy Winn vs. Johnny Damon.

  22. thefin190 on November 13th, 2007 10:41 am

    I think a better contest would be who is better at making a routine flyball look like a webgem.

  23. joser on November 13th, 2007 11:09 am

    Maybe Bearman is Bavasi? It would kind of explain a lot….

    But seeing as how salaries (in my mind) seem to be escalating at an ever increasing rate, I’ve got no idea what’s the price for an “average” player at various positions.

    Actually, that isn’t true. Using USA Today’s payroll numbers, total MLB payroll growth over previous year:
    ’99 19%
    ’00 16%
    ’01 17%
    ’02 3%
    ’03 5%
    ’04 -3%
    ’05 6%
    ’06 6%
    ’07 7%

    So salaries continue to grow, but not at an “ever-increasing” rate; in fact, growth has been pretty steady (and low, in historical terms) for six years now. Of course, that’s the total, which conceals the variations: the “extreme” salaries like Zito and (it would appear) ARod and Santana, do get ever more extreme — though some of that is the product of more years. (And yes, league-wide total payroll actually dropped from ’03 to ’04, mostly because Texas cut its payroll in half from $100M+ in ’03, but several others cut their payrolls by $14M-$20M that year; interestingly, the big drop in growth occured the year before the luxury tax, which was agreed in ’02 and first implemented in ’03).

    I have a spreadsheet where I was trying to figure out the average salary at each position, but it’s a little hard to figure out the right calculation: do you throw out the league-minimums and just do the average of the free agent salaries? Do you include only starters, or anybody who played that position at least n times (what do you do about platooned outfielders, for instance)?

  24. Carson on November 13th, 2007 11:15 am

    69 – I’d call his arm average, at best. Certainly not as bad as Damon’s, but “solid” is a bit of a stretch. Arm strength isn’t completely lost yet, but his accuracy leaves quite a bit to be desired.

  25. Steve Nelson on November 13th, 2007 11:26 am

    #73: So salaries continue to grow, but not at an “ever-increasing” rate; in fact, growth has been pretty steady (and low, in historical terms) for six years now. Of course, that’s the total, which conceals the variations: the “extreme” salaries like Zito and (it would appear) ARod and Santana, do get ever more extreme — though some of that is the product of more years.

    Increases in “extreme” salaries might also result from some teams deciding that mid-tier talent has been overpriced, but top tier talent is more scarce and more valuable. That doesn’t need to be a universal perception; only a handful of teams need reach that conclusion to cause top salaries to ratchet up more quickly.

  26. msb on November 13th, 2007 12:12 pm
  27. scraps on November 13th, 2007 12:13 pm

    And that is in fact a correct perception. The top-paid players should be getting more money, and the second tier tends to be a very overpaid group. So maybe more teams are figuring that out.

  28. Steve Nelson on November 13th, 2007 12:54 pm

    #77 And that is in fact a correct perception. The top-paid players should be getting more money, and the second tier tends to be a very overpaid group. So maybe more teams are figuring that out.

    I agree, and I also believe that many teams aren’t very effective at separating players into the appropriate tiers. The result is that a lot of top talent money is given to players who aren’t.

  29. smb on November 13th, 2007 1:57 pm

    77/78

    From there it becomes easy to see how Billy Beane exploits the margins and ends up getting those second-tier players at bargain basement prices because they weren’t the “hot” names on that list. Then they walk after he (probably) gets more than his money’s worth out of them, and he gets the compensatory picks in return, thus exacerbating/maximizing the operational efficiency divide between the A’s and the reckless spenders.

  30. Bearman on November 13th, 2007 3:16 pm

    #51,67,and 73: I’m not an insider just a very constant follower of all rumors,printed word and web searchs to gather a good amount of intel that allows me to make some possible conclusions that logically follow.
    Add in what we all know is Bavasi’s proven record of decimal trades,bust FA singings,and his haboit of overpaying veterans while rarely use that money to lock up young players unless forced by popularity with the fans.
    Felix Hernandez who is so key to any winning rotation the M’s may be able to put together in the next couple seasons as far as I know hasn’t been offer an extension contract to avoid the arbitration years.

    As to me being Bavasi think do you actually think any of those incompetent FO people read these blogs and forums?
    The current FO’s only real mission is to insure a fat profit not a winner however they do just enough to give M’s fans hope thus keeps them coming.
    ONly 100% housecleaning top to bottom of present FO with only few exceptions will the M’s ever see a World Series contender in Seattle.
    Then the new FO takes the tact that is combination of Beane’s methods in Oakland with the real money needed to back it up with FA signs to make it work.

  31. Carson on November 14th, 2007 9:18 am

    80 – Players Felix’s age with his service time don’t generally get long term extensions. You earn your stripes as a young cheap option, then cash in with a big pay day.

    If teams went out and gave big money all their young players who have obvious potential, they’d end up with a bunch of busts and injured players who never reach their expectations, and a lot of blown cash. Let’s leave that dumb idea to the NFL (See: Vick, Michael).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.