Moyer flirting with others

DMZ · November 16, 2005 at 10:39 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Man, first Ichiro’s unhappy, and now Moyer’s talking to other teams.

Tags:

Comments

107 Responses to “Moyer flirting with others”

  1. IceX on November 21st, 2005 3:40 pm

    Again, I haven’t been arguing to not sign Moyer or Loaiza. My entire argument is based on the premise that signing either to high prices will hamstring the Mariners’ budget and prevent them from signing Burnett or Millwood.

    At the same time, I will say that I am against signing Loaiza and Moyer (plus Jones for anything more than Ibanez, but that’s another story) for 7~10 million, if Millwood is signable for the same price or with reasonable payroll shuffling (not sign Meche, whatever).

    Dave’s plan (which IIRC, is Burnett + Moyer + Loiza + NRI Brown) isn’t bad, but my argument is to shunt the same resources away from 2 MOR pitchers so I can get 2 TOR pitchers with Felix, leaving you with.

    1 Burnett
    2 Millwood
    3 Felix
    4 Pineiro
    5 Flavor of the Day/Week/Month/Season

    I simply like the chances of that better, especially because Moyer and Loaiza will probably eat slots in the rotation for more than a 1 year contract, while also giving the flexibility of upgrading the 5 slot.

  2. IceX on November 21st, 2005 3:41 pm

    Oop, second part is meant to mean Loaiza + Moyer after signing Burnett or Millwood.

  3. Grizz on November 21st, 2005 4:57 pm

    Luckily, the M’s have a better chance of signing Matsuzaka this offseason than both Burnett and Millwood. In any event, spending $22-25 million on two good but not great pitchers would mean that Greg Dobbs is your everyday DH for the next three to five years, Aaron Sele or his equivalent is your fifth starter for the same time period, and Jojima would have to go back to Japan.

  4. IceX on November 21st, 2005 5:14 pm

    Please just delete the link if you’re scared of readers linking to other places.

  5. DMZ on November 21st, 2005 5:18 pm

    There’s a limit on the number of links a single comment can contain before it goes into moderation and someone has to look at it. That’s all.

    I’ve deleted it at your request.

  6. IceX on November 21st, 2005 5:25 pm

    Ok, let’s try it again without links…

    Why is that?

    Dave’s plan already has Burnett on it and is able to do fine, according to you.

    I only modify it to move payroll from 2 mediocre players that are already on Dave’s roster and reallocate funds to Millwood and entrust the 5 hole to a minor leaguer or random player of the week.

    Derek’s plan for the rotation is essentially the same as mine, sans Loaiza.

    Other bloggers have even made similarly equipped rosters with projected payrolls that’s even cheaper than Derek’s or Dave’s (cheaper bench player here, use a minor leaguer there, etc.)!

    But in the end… Like Derek says, stretch that payroll a little. Make it more so it reflects income. Losing Moyer isn’t the end of the world. And he’s not this offseason’s highest priority.

  7. Grizz on November 21st, 2005 6:12 pm

    I cited Dave’s plan for the number of proposed starters, not that the M’s could afford Burnett.

    I generally liked Dave’s plan but his salary estimates are unfortunately coming in low. Dave’s plan assumed a $10 million salary for Burnett, who is likely to get closer to $13 million per year, and for an additional year. Jojima signed for almost $2 million per year more than estimated, and for an extra year. Dave also used an $11.5 million salary for Sexson, but with his deferred signing bonus, it appears that he is actually making $17.5 million in 2006.

    It also looks like Millwood will get at least $10 million and maybe a fourth year.

    Even if the M’s offer that money, they still have to convince both of them to sign here amid similar offers.

    At those prices, the M’s are better off avoiding two long-term contracts and keeping long-term payroll flexibility for trade acquisitions or future signings.

    It is easy to take the two best free agent starters, and say “let’s sign them, and then all of our problems are solved.” It is also easy to take three pitching prospects, and say “let them pitch, and then all of our problems are solved.” But neither holds up as analysis.