What Now?
With the signing of Hisashi Iwakuma now official, the team’s off-season shopping list has gotten shorter. So, I figured it was probably time to take a look at the roster as it currently stands, and what the options are going forward from here. First, here’s what the Mariners could put together on Opening Day based on what’s already in the organization.
| Position | Player | PA/IP | WAR | Salary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Starters | ||||
| C | John Jaso | 300 | 1.0 | $0.5 |
| 1B | Justin Smoak | 600 | 2.0 | $0.5 |
| 2B | Dustin Ackley | 600 | 3.0 | $1.5 |
| SS | Brendan Ryan | 500 | 2.0 | $1.8 |
| 3B | Kyle Seager | 600 | 1.5 | $0.5 |
| LF | Casper Wells | 400 | 1.0 | $0.5 |
| CF | Franklin Gutierrez | 500 | 2.5 | $5.8 |
| RF | Ichiro Suzuki | 600 | 2.5 | $18.0 |
| DH | Mike Carp | 500 | 1.0 | $0.5 |
| Bench | ||||
| C | Miguel Olivo | 300 | 1.0 | $3.8 |
| IF | Chone Figgins | 300 | – | $9.5 |
| IF | Munenori Kawasaki | 200 | – | $0.8 |
| OF | Trayvon Robinson | 200 | – | $0.5 |
| Rotation | ||||
| SP1 | Felix Hernandez | 220 | 5.0 | $19.2 |
| SP2 | Michael Pineda | 200 | 3.0 | $0.5 |
| SP3 | Jason Vargas | 180 | 2.0 | $4.5 |
| SP4 | Hisashi Iwakuma | 150 | 1.0 | $2.0 |
| SP5 | Blake Beavan | 150 | 0.5 | $0.5 |
| Bullpen | ||||
| CL | Brandon League | 60 | 1.0 | $4.5 |
| RHP | Tom Wilhelmsen | 60 | 0.5 | $0.5 |
| LHP | George Sherrill | 40 | 0.5 | $1.1 |
| RHP | Shawn Kelley | 60 | 0.5 | $0.8 |
| LHP | Sean Henn | 50 | – | $0.5 |
| RHP | Chance Ruffin | 60 | – | $0.5 |
| LHP | Charlie Furbush | 70 | – | $0.5 |
| Totals | 31.5 | $79.2 |
(Quick note – the PA and IP totals don’t add up to the totals that a team accumulates over a full season, as no one plays the whole year with just 25 guys. Assume that the other ~800 PA and 150 IP will be filled by replacement level performances, and thus, won’t change the projections by any reasonable amount.)
Since a replacement level team will win about 43 games, a roster projected to produce about +31.5 WAR is around a 75 win club. This roster isn’t that of a contender, but it’s also a bit better than is usually given credit for. It’s not good, but it’s not awful, and with a few more upgrades (given that they have about $15M left in the budget, they’re clearly not done spending), the M’s could project as a .500-ish team for 2012, especially if you make some more aggressive projections on some of the high-variance guys on the roster.
From that group, I’d say there are three roster spots that could reasonably offer the hope of meaningful upgrades – the infield spot being filled by Chone Figgins, the outfield spot currently held by Trayvon Robinson, and the fifth starter spot possessed by Blake Beavan. The names projected for the back end of the bullpen might not be the guys who end up in those roles, but you’re not going to see significant value additions based on swapping out a different left-handed middle reliever, no matter which member of The Pile (TM: Lookout Landing) ends up with the job.
So, let’s focus on the three remaining roster upgrades, and look at the different options the team has for rounding out the roster.
There’s no real doubt that the Mariners priority is to get someone to take Robinson’s roster spot, and he is only penciled in now because that guy hasn’t been acquired yet. I could have written “empty” in that spot and it would have been just as accurate. The only question is what type of player this spot will go to and what position on the field he’ll play, as that variable will cause other player’s roles to shift.
Obviously, this would be the roster spot that Prince Fielder would fill if Jack Z decided to use the rest of his budget to bring him to Seattle. In that scenario, Fielder would displace Carp at DH (or Smoak at first base, who would then move to DH, so either way the result is the same), and he’d move into a job share with Casper Wells in left field. While replacing a replacement level player in Robinson with a roughly +5 win player in Fielder is a big upgrade, the overall effect would be a bit smaller, as you also have to reduce the amount of playing time that Carp/Wells would get, since they’d be sharing a job rather than being penciled in as regulars.
Also, if the Mariners went with that alignment, they’d probably need to keep Figgins and ask him to take up the outfield again, as the team can’t really afford to have a roster with just three legitimate outfielders (Carp is one in name only), especially given Gutierrez’s potentially lingering health issues. Signing a 1B/DH means that they would need Figgins to serve as a part-time outfielder, or at least be available to play the OF, so dumping him becomes less feasible.
To sign Fielder, the Mariners would obviously need to backload the deal somewhat to make him fit into the budget, and he’d be the last addition they could really afford to make. So, while they’d likely get something like a +4 win upgrade from having Fielder take Robinson’s roster spot, that move would also mean that the team was probably going into 2012 with a Seager/Figgins tandem at third base and a Beavan/Furbush battle for the #5 starter spot, with the loser shifting into the long reliever role out of the bullpen.
While this may be the preferred option for many, we’ve talked about how this isn’t the only way the M’s can upgrade that roster spot. As noted in my suggestion that they pursue Will Venable, they could simply add another outfielder to the mix, and could really benefit from having a left-handed hitter who could also cover center field from time to time. Bringing in a guy like Venable (about +2 win player) to replace Robinson and pick up some of the missing OF at-bats that would currently need to go to Figgins would allow them to keep Carp at DH – his best position – and give them the ability to play the match-ups with three outfielders covering two spots. Nearly all of the playing time that Venable would get is currently slotted to go to replacement level guys, so the team would get the full value of his +2 wins.
Considering that his salary would be only around $2 million for 2012, going that direction would leave the M’s with about $13 million to spend on the other two roster spots. And, with the outfield depth issue addressed, versatility wouldn’t be as large of a need, so you wouldn’t need to keep Figgins around for his ability to cover multiple positions. With that remaining money, they could sign one of the better free agent starters left on the market (say, for instance, Paul Maholm, who will probably end up signing for something in the $5-$6 million range) and then target a mid-level right-handed third baseman who could split time with Seager and potentially spend some time at 1B/DH as well, if the need arose.
While my favorite target for that role ended up with the Pirates, there are other options out there who could fit the bill – for instance, Mark Reynolds. He’s a bit of a disaster defensively at third base and his contact problems limit him to being just a decent hitter even with his top-notch power, but his problems with the glove would be limited in a job share with Seager, and he’d give them depth and a right-handed power bat who could get some playing time at 1B/DH as well. Reynolds is due to make $7.5 million in 2012 and then has a $500,000 buyout of his 2013 option, so the M’s would be on the hook for about $8 million if they picked him up from the Orioles. Assuming any deal for him would include Figgins going the other way (with the Mariners paying most of his remaining salary), the total net cost would probably be in the $6-$7 million range, just about what they’d have left after signing a pitcher like Maholm.
The total value of adding Venable over Robinson (+2 wins), Reynolds over Figgins (+1 win), and Maholm over Beavan (+1.5 wins) is actually slightly higher than just adding Fielder over Robinson and calling it a day. By spreading the money around and making three upgrades instead of one, the team could find themselves projecting just as well for 2012 as they would by signing Fielder, and they’d be in a better long term position by retaining financial flexibility and getting a better understanding of what they can expect from some of the kids already on the roster. Having three starters at the back end under contract for just one year would also give them the ability to let Danny Hultzen and James Paxton develop on their own timetable, but would give the organization solid potential trade bait during the summer if either was showing that they were ready for the big league rotation. In putting a solid team on the field in 2012 and keeping the options open for the future, this is my preferred plan of action.
However, it’s not the only alternative. If Fielder signs elsewhere, the Mariners will still have roughly $15 million to spend, and they could pursue other free agent hitters who would fit as LF/DH options. Guys like Carlos Pena or Luke Scott could become targets, and the team could choose to spend some of their remaining money on a guy who could offer some left-handed power at a lower price. Signing either should still leave enough money to pursue another free agent pitcher, so you’re probably looking at a +3 win upgrade between those two additions, and you’d get to keep whatever prospect you had to surrender to get a guy like Venable. The team wouldn’t be quite as good as in either of the other two scenarios, but it might be an easier alternative to pull off, since it’s just two free agent signings instead of a couple of trades.
My guess is that the remainder of the team’s off-season will resemble one of these three options:
A. Sign Fielder, call it a day, go forward with current roster and him.
B. Acquire an outfielder, third baseman, and a starting pitcher, spending just a bit on each.
C. Sign a non-Fielder DH and a starting pitcher.
In any of these scenarios, the team probably projects as something like a +78 to +80 win team, so there’s not a huge difference in expected performance no matter which path the team chooses. Obviously, the sign-Fielder path is the splashiest, but to me, it doesn’t result in a roster that’s clearly better than pursuing upgrades through other avenues, and obviously a Venable/Reynolds/Maholm trio would come without the massive risks of signing Fielder to a long term deal.
There are certainly options on the table for the Mariners. Reasonable people can differ on the merits of pursuing one strategy or another, but don’t let anyone tell you that the team “has to sign Prince Fielder” or that their moves to this point will be a failure if they don’t get “a big bat” to go with them. The team has done a really nice job of adding solid role players to fill gaping holes in the roster, and with a few more smart moves, the team could be in a pretty solid position going forward. If Fielder’s price ends up being reasonable, these low-cost additions have given them the flexibility to fit him into the budget, but there’s still plenty of ways to spend $15 million and make this team a respectable one for the 2012 season.
I’m pretty sure Felix doesn’t care whether the team wins with or without Prince Fielder. It’s wins and money that will matter, not the marquee-ness of the free agents the team signs.
I’m goin to school for business mgt. We are studying social responsibility and ethics. Some questions are forming. When Mr. Z. Looked us in the eye and said hold on and we will change the culture here was that an implied or an implicit contract with the fanbase? Do the M’s have an ethical obligation to provide a winning team to the fans? Are there variations to lucrative teams? Can MLB do anything to change our culture of winning? I am personally excited about the debate this offseason and think that it is an echo of the place that Mr. Z has put us in… a team that is better than it thinks.
I have an MBA from UW. From biz school perspective, “ethics” means don’t get caught. “Social responsibility” is more complex. It requires you to weigh the value of the good done vs the cost–the marketing value.
Seattle’s local government committed malpractice by giving so much value to the M’s and to Paul Allen (when he was the 4th wealthiest man on Earth, no less). That doesn’t actuaaly create any obligation, moral or otherwise, on M’s ownership to outcompete or outspend their fellow billionaires.
I wonder how much social responsibility is taken into account in baseball anymore. As a fan, it’s challenging to keep a childlike trust in the product when it is deficient. Keep going back to when Mr. Z. gave the aside in the commercial and promised to do his best(paraphrase). Although find my faith waivering. I know this site is more focused on fact than feeling but my heart tells me our front office is almost as strong as our community is willing to embrace Fourty heroes this spring. Put my trust in the product one more year .
Great stuff, as always, Dave. It’d be nice to see Venable in Seattle.
Question, though:
Why do you respond to so many of the commenters who criticize-without-thinking. I hate to see you waste your time and energy.
If the Mariners get Fielder, it’d be nice if the Mariners flipped Carp for a pitcher and acquired a guy like Venable or Seth Smith to take his place. Carp doesn’t have much value as a platoon outfielder who can only play a below-average left field.
If the Mariners could trade Saunders and Robinson for Venable; sign Betemit(switch hitter,decent defense)and Maholm then Carp to DH they would get decent return for that 15M and fill some big holes.
Betemit’s career wRC+ against LHPs is 79. To put that in perspective, Brendan Ryan’s career wRC+ is 79. Betemit offers no value whatsoever against southpaws, and should essentially never play when a lefty is on the mound.
Also, his defense is downright terrible. He’s not a fit.
What’s the argument for why Cespedes doesn’t make sense for the Ms?
Dave: As usual you are right. A .940 career FP is bad. The M’s should try and get Venable and Headley for some package.
Man. All this talk about Fielder makes me really want Votto.
However, I do want Fielder. And even though your argument makes sense, I think I’m just thinking short-term. I want there to be some part of the order that can actually get on base and score runs. I have no doubt that if we traded all our pitching for the best offense and we blew a ton of leads next year because of the opposite problem, I’d then want quality pitching. But in the meantime, there’s an emotional aspect that just wants to see some offense.
In the end I’ll be happy if we just stay near the playoffs for most of the season but during this offseason, I’d love to see some decent money spent to bring in some offense. The nice thing about our current GM is that I feel that whomever we bring in won’t be an albatross.
What’s the argument for why Cespedes doesn’t make sense for the Ms?
I admit I’ve been mulling this over myself. Cespedes to me seems to be the epitome of a high-risk, potentially-high-return deal. But you pony up the 30-40 million in either case, no matter how it turns out.
He’s an extremely unknown variable as a player. He’s REPUTED to have speed. REPUTED to have power. But he’s also a righty bat, and maybe not the kind of bat that can solve Safeco Field completely.
The fact he plays outfield (wherein we have a number of young outfielders that we’re hoping turn out to be something), his unknown skill-set and a sky-high asking price are my leading guesses why Dave thinks Cespedes isn’t a fit.
The fact he plays outfield (wherein we have a number of young outfielders that we’re hoping turn out to be something), his unknown skill-set and a sky-high asking price are my leading guesses why Dave thinks Cespedes isn’t a fit.
Is it reasonable (and hopefully not too offensive) to say that the potential downside is that Cespedes turns into an outfielder version of Yuniesky Betancourt?
Have any of the stat-gurus done a study on the reliability of WAR as a predictor of future performance? I seem to remember (thought I could be wrong) the WAR of last years team as it was penciled in about this time of year, giving us about 75 wins. Anyone remember the numbers? I’d love to stop paying Psychic Olga for predictions. (Her voice mail message: This is Psychic Olga. I’m out of my body right now, but I know who you are and I know what you want, and I’ll call back tonight.”
I love having the sabermetics to help analyze things. Otherwise I’d want a team of my favorite players to watch. At the same time, my favorite players, the ones I really look forward to going to see, aren’t always the best ones. I still miss Bucky Jacobson, who went down and down until he couldn’t stick even in an independent league.
Oh, and apropos of nothing, Larry Stone wrote an awesome blog post on Hot Stove League detailing exactly how much the M’s have benefited from Japanese ownership (spoilers: not as much as people rant about). I’d almost recommend plugging a link to that on the front page here, and/or including it in the “suggested reading” for USSM. Larry’s point is concise and thorough enough, it’s just that good.
Also, my 1/50th of a dollar regarding all these Fielder thoughts:
We’re all tired of losing. We see what the Rangers and Angels are doing, and it just screams “another ten years of wishin’…” to many of us. And an awful lot of the “sign Fielder” camp seem to be saying so because they think Fielder is one huge step into “better than mediocrity”.
But we are farther away from being a perennial contender than what a Prince Fielder- and I know how good Fielder is- could conceivably bring us. I don’t know how to say it plainer than that.
Look. In terms of pure offensive production, Prince Fielder makes sense as a Mariner in 2012, 2013, maybe even 2014. But what about 2015? As he pushes and then tows 30 years old? Or worse, what if he declines even before then?
The historical data on this kind of player with this kind of body-type just warns us- with blazing red lights all over the room- that this player’s productivity will go down…and exactly parallel to when the dollar figures for his being on the team go up.
Those who want Fielder- and winning- now just aren’t giving these warning bells the attention they deserve. Or all too often think that we can just trade out of the contractual obligation when it becomes thoroughly unpalatable.
I have been on the “Don’t sign Fielder” camp since Day One of his free agency. It’s really not a match at all. Fielder has no real affinity for our corner of the United States, wants to win now presumably…and what evidence I can see of him being a “veteran presence” (that oh-so-valuable commodity) that could help all our young’uns fulfill their potential I would deem dubious at best.
And oh yeah, too expensive.
I want my team to win as much as anyone here. But Fielder is the wrong move- not at first maybe, maybe not even two or three years from now- but eventually.
I’d like to point out something that was on a recent ProspectInsider article…that it took Jon Daniels like about four or FIVE seasons before he got the Rangers to the rarified AL air that he has them in now. Zduriencik is in Year Three and has already gotten our farm system back to where we can expect it to produce talent for the next several seasons.
And Daniels had more to work with than what Zduriencik did when he took over the helm.
I’m also NOT saying: Punt on 2012. But acquiring a Will Venable and other under-valued assets from other orgs in 2012 is far more appealing to me. We may even strike gold with one of the guys we pick up.
/thoughtsonthematter
SonOfZavaras, amen.
That has been exactly what I’ve been arguing myself. I want to win in the worst way myself, but if we are to win, I want a perennial contender, not a one-and-done deal. We are put in the interesting position of having someone like Z actually rebuild from below ground zero. While he may not have been able to jump-start the process by trading big players, I think he has done a good job of bringing his people into the organization. The only thing now is to see if those players he has drafted and traded for in the minors work out.
@SonOfZavaras… good post
Clearly GMZ wants him and see’s his bat as a need, so maybe the question should be at what length of contract or terms would you sign Fielder?
I can see why many desperately want him but like you I don’t want him for 8 or 9 years. But at 6 years and a club option for 7, with a player opt out clause at 4, I personally would be OK with it. I truly believe at 6 years there will still only be a limited amount of Clubs willing to go that long with him. He is not AROD or Albert. His contract will be closer to what Adrian Gonzalez ended up with IMO.
When Mr. Z. Looked us in the eye and said hold on and we will change the culture here was that an implied or an implicit contract with the fanbase? Do the M’s have an ethical obligation to provide a winning team to the fans?
You can’t be serious. First, the “change the culture” line is just boilerplate generic meaningless PR, everyone in the same position would come up with a similar line. Intelligent people just filter stuff like that out.
Second, I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around an ethical obligation that approximately 50% of the relevant actors must, be definition, fail at. The notion of an ethical obligation to win at a competition suggests a basic failure to understand the concept of “ethics”, “competition”, or perhaps both.
It still seems silly to ignore Hultzen in the discussion for the 5th starter spot out of spring training. Maybe you’re just being conservative, but reports suggest he’ll be given every chance to earn the job.
It doesn’t hurt that his competition is Beavan and Furbush, or that the M’s awarded a rotation spot to Michael Pineda out of spring training last year.
The Blue Jays have designated Mark Teahen for assignment.
Last year, he couldn’t hit water if he fell out a boat. Still worth a flyer to us? Lefty swinger at the plate, has outfield and corner infield experience.
I think they start Hultzen in AAA, slow down his clock and give him a couple of months seasoning. Yes you could argue he doesnt need it. But just bring up Paxton and Hutlzen during 2012 and this would keep them with the club until at least the end of 2018. Although if Vargas is traded then Hultzen makes the club earlier. A 2013 rotation of Felix, Hultzen, Pineda, Paxton + 1 sounds awesome! Then we will have Walker on the way too.
I love your analysis Dave. You always spell it out so clearly.
Here’s my issue, though. Everyone around here doesn’t like Fielder because he’s expensive and limits future flexibility. But the guy has been successful his whole career thus far so why is it so bad to count him as a big piece of our future?
Either way, if we want to contend in a few years, we’ll have to up the budget for better hitters because we don’t have them in our farm. So spend now or spend in a couple years, what’s the difference? 12 vs a dozen to me.
As far as these options here and now, which one’s worse?: For the next couple of years, holding a bowling ball in your hands or juggling three eggs? Who really knows?
Speaking as one of the guys who “doesn’t like Fielder”… that’s an inaccurate statement. I’d love to get Fielder with the right deal. I doubt there’s anyone here who wouldn’t love to get Fielder with the right deal. What those of us who “don’t like” him think is the deal he’s likely to get is too expensive and too long, and will end up causing major misery for the team in the long term.
Just speaking for myself – if he’d take a 5 year deal at, say $22 million, I’d probably do that in a heartbeat. But a 10 year deal that’s costing 25-30 million a year would be ridiculous (in my opinion).
For what it’s worth, I think the Angels are going to regret the Pujol’s deal after year five or so.
“I think they start Hultzen in AAA, slow down his clock and give him a couple of months seasoning. Yes you could argue he doesnt need it. But just bring up Paxton and Hutlzen during 2012 and this would keep them with the club until at least the end of 2018. Although if Vargas is traded then Hultzen makes the club earlier.”
See, I think the wise move would be to purposely keep Hultzen in AAA until late June/early July–right after a trade of Vargas to a contending team in need of a back of the rotation lefty(hopefully, some team needs that).
That’s based on both:
a. Hoping that Vargas puts up a good half season’s worth of starts to maximize the return we’d get(he’d have 1.5 years of team control left at that point, too, for whatever team got him).
b. Giving Hultzen a half season in AA/AAA to show that he is ready, then give him Vargas’ spot.
Also, it looks like we won’t be getting Paul Maholm anyway, so the rotation will most likely be Felix/Pineda/Vargas/Iwakuma/Beavan, with Furbush and hopefully Hultzen(or possibly Paxton?) ready to come up/step in when ready
(And I could really say the final spot could be Beavan/Furbush, but I kind of hope Beavan gets the final rotation spot out of spring training, with Furbush going to the bullpen and being a spot starter/long reliever).
Seeing Mike Morse’s picture plastered on MLBTR made me wonder if it would be worth exploring, if the Nats sign Fielder, maybe they would be willing to trade Morse and if it would be worth exploring for the mariners.
Can play 1b and OF, also DH.
Westside, sorry but I thought that was obvious. Of course everyone would want Fielder if he was cheap enough. I was inherently including the fact that everyone believes he will not be cheap enough and will break down at age 30 like Mo Vaughn did. That’s why no one here “likes Fielder” — because of the issues that come with him.
All I was trying to say is that in order to contend, we will have to put a bunch of eggs in one or a couple huge baskets at some point for some stronger hitters. So now or a in a couple years, makes no difference to me. Again, I say that because we don’t have strong hitters in our farm and I think everyone knows that. We’ll have to buy/trade for some sooner or later. And with all the traditional big spenders out on Fielder now (NYY, BoSox, Phil, Angels), maybe the best deal on a power hitter we will find in the next few years is now.
I think Boras is just using the Nationals to drive the price and years up. GMZ has probably offered some potential framework around a deal and is waiting out the market. Any NL club would be a little crazy to ho more than 5 years, they can’t DH him so most know the risk. I believe the M’s should go 6 years with an option for 7.
It’s funny that there is so much debate over this when at the right length/structure we would mostly all want him. So why does everyone believe we will overpay or cripple ourselves to get him? Whereas all the trust in GMZ gone? If GMZ gets him on his terms we should all be happy, if not then he will go with incremental improvements at multiple positions, like in Daves plan.
I agree on the timing Knickers77. Then at the end of the season it’s the perfect time to get a catcher, look at next years potential free agent class… Yadier Molina, Chris Iannetta, Russell Martin, Miguel Montero, Mike Napoli, A.J. Pierzynski, Olivio, Yorvit Torrealba.
We will also know where we are at with Wells, Carp, Guti, Seager and Ichiro etc so Jack can round out the roster accordingly.
Gibbo, great point. A lot of people freak out on this website that the Ms will make an emotional and irrational decision to overpay for Fielder after all that the Angels and Rangers did. Don’t we trust Jack Z??? He’s a pretty smart guy.
Turning it around – Why do you seem to believe getting Fielder is the only way to accomplish this goal? It’s obvious the team needs to add offense. Dave has already spelled out a few different options that accomplish exactly this, and others have put forth additional ideas in the discussions – but some people seem to be wearing Fielder blinders.
People make the assumption Fielder won’t last long because overweight power hitters, on the whole, haven’t had long careers.
Given that the team is unlikely to do better than “respectability” in 2012, plus the fact that this just hasn’t been a great free agent market (Pujols and Fielder notwithstanding), to me it doesn’t make sense to go for the “big splash” now. I don’t personally think a big splash is truly necessary – but, if that’s what the team wants to do, it makes more sense to pull that sort of move when we have a shot at contending (say, during next year’s off-season which will also happen to offer much more free agent talent).
I think at this point it’s safe to say that Prince Fielder isn’t going to sign with ANYONE. He’s intent to hang up his cleats and never play another game. And why? Because he has a fear of awful puns, and he, like everyone else on earth, is shivering in his size 14 cleats at the thought of the brewing massive media onslaught of articles about to be titled “Fielder’s Choice” if/when he signs a new contract.
I gotta say, honestly, I can’t begrudge the guy. It’s a sound decision.
>>kinickers77 on January 10th, 2012 10:31 am
So now or a in a couple years, makes no difference to me.<<
It makes a huge difference to me.
Why add the missing piece now? I think everyone here agrees that the team is 2-3 years away at the very least. Why sign the missing piece when by the time we are ready, he won't be?
It is the reverse of signing an aging player who is now expensive and well past his prime.
Yeah, I think a lot of that was in Dave’s point. Yes, he’s a high value player….but that value gets squandered a bit if you’re not competitive with him in the lineup–even more so if you’re not competitive during his most productive years.
A lot of the impulse is the feeling that he’s there, he’s visible and there will be no other opportunity to get a value like him. I just don’t think that’s the case, particularly if you go the trade route (and down the line, you’re likely to have even more pieces if Jack is as good at the minor leagues as we think he is).
I don’t worry about getting valuable pieces down the track – you are right they are always available either via trade or FA. None of us really know exactly what the budget is, Jack knows and he should be trusted to use it accordingly. Dave mentioned Jacks quote that budget would be around the same this year, fair enough. But GMZ also plays his cards very close to his chest so I take it all with a grain of salt. If he thinks getting Fielder now and juggling other positions around is the right move why do so many choose to say that this would be crazy? We won’t give him 10 years, but why not 6 or 7 with an OPT out clause at 3 – let him take his opt out clause and by then you have your own talent getting expensive.
If Cardinals are really shopping for a RH reliever, then offer League (or Kelley) for Matt Carpenter and Tommy Pham. I would really like to see what Carpenter is capable of- hes blocked and would be a great fit for Ms.
Naw, I wouldn’t think that…you’re right that there’s a price Jack feels comfortable with, and he WON’T be buffaloed into going over that. That might be higher than where some people would put it, but if it makes sense to Jack, he has the track record (even with the Figgins miss) of being able to set it at the right place.
“There are certainly options on the table for the Mariners. Reasonable people can differ on the merits of pursuing one strategy or another, but don’t let anyone tell you that the team “has to sign Prince Fielder” or that their moves to this point will be a failure if they don’t get “a big bat” to go with them. The team has done a really nice job of adding solid role players to fill gaping holes in the roster, and with a few more smart moves, the team could be in a pretty solid position going forward. If Fielder’s price ends up being reasonable, these low-cost additions have given them the flexibility to fit him into the budget, but there’s still plenty of ways to spend $15 million and make this team a respectable one for the 2012 season.”
Where have I read that before? I know there was another article a year ago that said the exact same thing….maybe it was two years ago? no, i remember now, it has been every single year. Lets just keep doing what we do every year Dave!Hopefully one of these years 4-5 of these role players will outperform just like in 2001 and we will have one good season, then 10 more of “rebuilding”
Tampa Bay, early part of this century.
Tampa Bay grew their players, they didn’t just sign role players. They also had a much smaller payroll at the time, what is our excuse?
I don’t think you’ve quite grasped why Dave is advising the course he is (something he has explicitly stated on various occasions). Until you do, I don’t think any further discussion with you is fruitful.
Westside, I don’t think getting Fielder is the “only way.” I just think it’s a good way because there are no big-market teams driving his price up right now.
And I think that Dave would agree that his other options for this year are fine for a .500 team but building a roster full of Venables, Reynolds and the lesser won’t win you anything. It’ll make you just ok. You’ll have to have some real difference makers in there – some +5 WAR guys, one or two or more if you can. A team full of +1s or +2s won’t cut it.
And kennyb, I guess I just disagree. I think Fielder will still be a +5 WAR player in 2-3 years. I think he might start declining in about 5 years. But obviously I don’t know, and neither do you. We can only guess. I guess he’ll be a little later in decline than Vaughn was because he’s had such a great track record thus far and had a talented dad teaching him how to hit his whole childhood. But again, it’s just my hunch, which is worth nothing. But so is everyone else’s. No way to know.
For me, it just comes down to getting tired of waiting. The Mariners seem to be scared of signing big powerbats ever since Sexson. They don’t want to pay for a superstar slugger. Or at least one with a good track record. They definitely overpaid for Beltre after one big year but that was just stupid. I’m just afraid 2 years from now people will be preaching the same thing because they still haven’t signed a power bat and their farm hasn’t produced one either.
And with a deal like Dave mapped out, I don’t think signing Fielder is a bad move.
Apparently us fans shouldn’t worry about how much a player costs. Money should be spent Willy-nilly giving out contracts in the Carlos Silva mold. The M’s have a money tree I heard.
And I think that Dave would agree that his other options for this year are fine for a .500 team but building a roster full of Venables, Reynolds and the lesser won’t win you anything. It’ll make you just ok. You’ll have to have some real difference makers in there – some +5 WAR guys, one or two or more if you can. A team full of +1s or +2s won’t cut it.
But Dave went through the math here (emphasis added):
My guess is that the remainder of the team’s off-season will resemble one of these three options:
A. Sign Fielder, call it a day, go forward with current roster and him.
B. Acquire an outfielder, third baseman, and a starting pitcher, spending just a bit on each.
C. Sign a non-Fielder DH and a starting pitcher.
In any of these scenarios, the team probably projects as something like a +78 to +80 win team, so there’s not a huge difference in expected performance no matter which path the team chooses.
Fielder doesn’t turn the 2012 Mariners into a contender. What it does do is put a very good player in place at a position long term, but someone with both an expensive contract but who represents high risk going forward.
We have a team that spent 2011 losing about a quarter of their retained earnings over the past 20 years as a loss on the field (meaning eventually, if the team keeps losing money, salaries have to get cut, capital calls need to be made, or something has to give).
There’s a perfectly logical argument for taking a pass on Fielder and spending the money we’d pay him making the team decent WITHOUT committing the 2013-201? teams to a player with a skill set that generally does not age gracefully. Essentially, 2012’s goals are to a) not be bad, and b) sort through the talent Zduriencik’s acquired at various positions (Seager, Smoak, Carp, Robinson, Guti, Wells), and figure out who belongs on the 2013 team and where the M’s need to upgrade (as well as using another year of farm system development).
They definitely overpaid for Beltre after one big year but that was just stupid.
This is just wrong. Beltre was a very good player in Seattle. That is masked by how Safeco brutalizes RHB and by how he had a career year in 2004, but his deal was actually one of the few things that Bavasi got right- he signed the right player for reasonable value on the FA market. You can see this now that he’s spent time in Boston and Texas, too. Same player, better environment for hitting.
That might be higher than where some people would put it, but if it makes sense to Jack, he has the track record (even with the Figgins miss) of being able to set it at the right place.
Uh, what is his track record on this? Milton Bradley? Jack Cust? Casey Kotchman? Morse for Langerhans?
Yeah, I know, this is cherrypicking (we could put the Lee trades in, as well as Branyan and Brendan Ryan), but to be honest, GMZ’s had some pretty significant whiffs in player acquisition to go along with solid moves.
In fairness to Z, Milton Bradley was acquired for Carlos Silva, who at the time was on the 60 day DL with a bad case of rosteritis. He had a decent bounce back in 2010 with the Cubs but was in AaA all of last year. Bradley was pretty much exactly what we expected, a volatile high-risk, potential high-reward guy. We just didn’t get the reward is all. That’s the kind of “bad move” I will defend a GM making for a long time.
a volatile high-risk, potential high-reward guy
… that made made a lot of GMs in the league decide “I can’t stand this guy, he doesn’t belong on my team”. This includes Billy Beane, who LOVES the skillset Bradley had, who traded Bradley, with cash, for this guy.
Yes, being a GM does involve making decisions that won’t work out. But being a successful, excellent GM means more of your decisions work than don’t, and Zduriencik’s record’s kind of mixed- it’s his job to get these things right, and he gets to take the heat if he doesn’t. This isn’t “fire the guy”; this is “let’s not plan his Hall of Fame plaque and the World Championship parade just quite yet”.
To put this another way: Zduriencik comes out a lot stronger when you evaluate him on trades like the Putz deal, the two Cliff Lee deals, drafts and so on, where he’s dealing in the part where his career strength has been (minor league talent evaluation and scouting), than on the major league side of the fence (free agents, trades with MLB players), where he hasn’t had as much experience (since this is his first GM gig)- think of that side as the Pat Gillick side of the house. The problem is you have to do both really well to be a really good GM and put together good teams. GMZ can’t get the decisions on the guys like Bradley, Figgins and Fielder consistently wrong if the Mariners want to be contenders.