Rosenthal: Three years, pending a physical. No word on money yet.
If Miguel Batista's so smart, why's he signing with Seattle?
A few months ago I was exchanging emails with Dave regarding potential bargain starters available in the offseason. Some of the names that came up, off the top of my head: Jason Johnson, Rodrigo Lopez, Angel Guzman, Kameron Loe, Jeff Weaver (this was before the playoffs), Tim Redding, and Miguel Batista. All of them looked like reasonable back-of-the-rotation starters that the Mariners could land without having to pay very much, leaving plenty of room to sign a Matsuzaka or Schmidt or whoever to put at #1.
I underestimated this market.
The Royals offered Batista $24m over three years, and there's no reason for him to take a discount to play in Seattle. In case you haven't noticed, this team's been pretty pathetic. So if and when Ken Rosenthal's words come true, Batista's going to be a Mariner through 2009 for at least $8m a season. That's a formidable deal. There's no way around it.
It's a move that shows both the intelligence and the shortcomings of the Mariner front office. Miguel Batista's a durable starter who keeps the ball on the ground and rarely gets blown out of the water, so in that respect he's a valuable pitcher. Batista, like Horacio Ramirez, Jarrod Washburn, and Richie Sexson, was properly identified as a guy who could succeed in this environment and help the team win. The problem is that, once the front office saw those potential values, they spent out the ass to get them, requiring that they consistently perform to the best of their respective abilities to be worth the price. Bavasi's heart is in the right place, but God bless him, he just struggles with the execution. If you like Miguel Batista, but his price soars above the level you expected, you don't keep bidding. You drop out and sign John Thomson instead. Yeah, he has his risks, but given the discrepancy in cost he's far and away the better gamble.
So let's say Batista chooses Seattle over Kansas City for the same contract. This means that, in 2008, the Mariners will have Batista, Beltre, Sexson, and Washburn locked up for a combined $43.13m. That's roughly 45% of the team payroll tied up in four players who might give you half that production. I know I say it over and over and over again, but one more time, bad contracts add up. If you're already operating with reduced flexibility, you don't go out and reduce it further by giving $24m to a 36 year old.
Following the Soriano trade, the Mariners had leftover cash that they needed to spend. After all, it doesn't make any sense to let the owners pocket the money. Rather than putting it towards someone who'd come on a pricey but short-term commitment, though, they're taking a three-year risk with slim odds of being worthwhile. A few days ago I was saying that, if nothing else, at least Bavasi wasn't tying up the team with future payroll, but now I can't even use that defense anymore.
All right, enough of that. At least Miguel Batista's useful, in a Jarrod Washburn sense. He doesn't strike anyone out, but he's a good bet to give you 30 starts with an ERA in the mid-4's, which has value. And where Washburn only gets by at home because of Safeco's spacious dimensions, Batista will be able to feast off of Betancourt and Beltre no matter where he pitches. The same goes for Horacio Ramirez. By making the pitchers complementary to the roster, instead of the park, you make them look better 32 times a year instead of 16. That's a good idea on the part of the front office, even if it isn't necessarily intentional. You can't waste those kinds of infield gloves on a staff of flyball pitchers.
Miguel Batista's going to be okay. When you look at a rotation of Felix/Washburn/Ramirez/Batista/Baek you feel like throwing up a little, but Batista by himself is an acceptable player, one of those guys who "always keeps his team in the game" (which I expect to hear several dozen times this year) and who's capable of improving Jose Guillen's incoherent pseudo-English. Assuming he signs, he's a fine pitcher and he improves the Mariners from where they stood a day ago. He just doesn't improve them enough.
0 recs | 86 comments
Batista and Washburn
We are going to spend about $54 million over the next three years on these two guys if the Batista deal goes though.Think about that. $54 million. Jarrod Washburn and Miguel Batista. Through 2009...
tait644 - December 11, 2006
So who wants to be a Devil Rays fan with me?
Scruffy Lefty - December 11, 2006
You know, the Ms should just buy the DRays
that would make one hell of a roster and farm system.Matthew - December 11, 2006
I'd take the Twins
Can't be -that- expensive.Graham MacAree - December 11, 2006
Yeah I've been pushing for the Twins for
months now. Santana would make it worth it alone.Edgar for Pres - December 12, 2006
attended
Went to a D-Rays game last year in Tampa. If I lived in Tampa, Id DEFINITELY be a fan. Its sad to see how many people just dont care about the team. (I think it'd be the same even if they won)tkballer22 - December 11, 2006
Uggh.
One of the things I try and keep in perspective is the reality of what's out there, and who would sign with the M's and improve the club. Heck, Bavasi could throw 6/$150 at Zito and he could STILL turn it down (and, quite frankly, I wouldn't really blame him, either).What other options are out there, really? We knew this offseason was finished when Bavasi made the bone-headed Soriano move. The M's indeed have committed to sucking next year. The players know it, the fans know it, and any player that might've potentially wanted to play in Seattle knows it, too.
Not only is the market insanely crazy, but Seattle isn't exactly a desirable location even when you ignore the idiotic decision Bavasi just made. Factor in the fact that the franchise isn't showing many signs of moving forward, and that increases the cost of trying to lure players to come here.
I thought we were at least inching forward, and had hit the valley last year. I'm not convinced we're at the bottom yet.
PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
Another option...
Is not to sign anyone and let one of the questionable arms in the system get a chance. Another is to sign a questionable arm to a one year contract. Now, why are these better deals?Because by giving mediocre players long term contracts that eat payroll Bavasi is not just dooming this year's team to mediocrity... he is dooming future teams in future years.
manyoso - December 11, 2006
and he is doing this
unfortunately to save his jobScruffy Lefty - December 11, 2006
Hmm...
I'm not sure he's even doing this to save his job. He's trying to fill out decimated starting pitching staff, knowing that his manager will shred young starters to pieces. While he's not exactly going about it in the most ideal way, there are worse decisions that could be made. I would've given Schmidt the contract he got from LA, myself. But there are good reasons to believe, too, that even that contract could be worse than the one Batista could sign with Seattle...PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
Oh, and...
Even if he's adding payroll to burden the next GM, he's NOT sacrificing the sanity or the potential of some not-quite-ready starting pitching prospects.PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
What am I saying, though...
Gerpotenwogen!Here I go and defend Bavasi again, when I swore I'd never do it.
Please. Someone take the pen away from Bavasi.
PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
let's define "suck"
Look, I'm as uneasy about some of the deals this winter as any of you. Trading Soriano for Ramirez really eats at me. And giving 3/24 to Batista (if that's what the numbers really would be) isn't a good way to spend money.But...when I hear ya'll say the Mariners have already given up 2007 and they're going to "suck", I envision 60-65 wins...kinda like 2004 and 2005. But...the M's are coming off a 78-win season and, barring some major injuries, look like they may get a bit better. 90 wins? Doubt it. But 80-85? Yeah, maybe. Does that mean they'll "suck"? Hardly.
Let's look at the changes so far. Guillen takes over in RF. If he stays reasonably healthy, he'll be more productive than what we had in CF (since I think we know what we'll get from Ichiro, despite his position change). We have a better bat on the bench in Broussard/Snelling, depending on the DH that day. A marginally better offense.
We lose Meche and Pineiro (assuming we lose Pineiro) and gain Ramirez and Batista. Either one is better than Pineiro and occasionally better than Meche. Perhaps a marginally better rotation.
We lose Soriano from the bullpen, but everyone else is back. Slight downgrade. I would argue to sign another set up man to go with Putz, Sherrill and Huber in the last three innings.
Defense? The same, more or less. Better in CF with Ichiro. Guillen's decent in RF, depending in part on the health of his elbow.
Results? I expect more or less the same, or perhaps slightly better. That's disappointing because we all thought more could have, or should have, been done. But will this team "suck"? I would argue no.
spokane dude - December 11, 2006
What is up with Mulder?
Is he in a position to be had short term and with incentives, on a cheap contract, or under the current conditions, is he looking to get rich quick too?Dollar97 - December 11, 2006
I read an article
about Mulder the other day that says he probably won't be able to pitch until mid-season. So whoever is signing him is signing him for the second half and beyond.MfaninAlaska - December 11, 2006
A better option
I think that Mulder is a much better idea than Batista, simply because he won't require a long-term commitment.I would much rather see the M's throw $10 million plus incentives to Mulder. With a team option, even for $12-14 million, it would be worth it.
The M's would be paying out the ass for flexibility and upside instead of paying out the ass for mediocrity.
Jerry - December 11, 2006
Uh
You'd rather pay Mulder $10m plus incentives to pitch half a season?Jeff Sullivan - December 11, 2006
I was thinking exactly the same thing
basebliman - December 11, 2006
yeah
Yup. Pretty much.Let me be clear. I am not arguing that this is a good move.
I am saying that this is the least worst move.
It might be more than half a season. People are saying that he will be on the mound by April, and probably back in MLB by May. That is more like 3/4 of a year.
If the M's brought in Jason Johnson to at least get them through April and May, it would be a pretty good deal.
But the big part is keeping contract short-term.
A three year deal for Batista is just one more contract for Bavasi's successor to unload.
Jerry - December 11, 2006
Mulder was a physical mess.
He's not going to be at anything close to full strength even when he comes back. His entire 2007 is basically going to be a rehab assignment in the Majors.Jeff Sullivan - December 11, 2006
Not so sure
Obviously, we can't really know the extent of his injuries or where he is in his rehab right now.Obviously, with a guy like this, you would have to go over his medical reports very carefully, and do lots of exams before signing.
You are correct that there is a chance, even a good chance, that he doesn't pitch all that well next year.
But there is a 0% chance that he becomes an albatross contract keeping the m's from doing other things in 2007. There is a 0% chance of him becoming an untradable mistake.
And if the M's could get a team option for 2008, which seems pretty standard on these one-year deals recently, there is a legit chance that the club gets lucky in this whole deal.
I don't see any upside with Batista. In the best case scenario (well, at least the best reasonable scenario) he will be an overpaid #4 starter.
The M's will suck even with him pitching 200 innings of 4.5ish ball. Why not take a shot at something with upside, and hedge your bets with other options that are actually good values?
Jerry - December 11, 2006
Good values?
You just advocated giving Mark Mulder $22-24m to pitch a season and a half.Same problem, different guy. You'd be paying him to perform at his maximum possible ability.
Jeff Sullivan - December 11, 2006
Ok
something reasonable would be 2yr-10 million if he can't pitch until halfway through next year. I'd even throw some incentives if he reaches 100 IP this year and 150 IP next year. Maybe allows him to up his salary by 10 million if he hits both of those.If he was smart, he'd sign a one year deal that has a bunch of incentives in it so that if he recovers, he can cash in fast.
Edgar for Pres - December 11, 2006
Out of context
"You just advocated giving Mark Mulder $22-24m to pitch a season and a half."No I didn't. Nice twisting of words there.
I am advocating taking a $10 mil flyer on a pitcher who could be really good in 2008.
If Mulder is healthy, he does everything that Batista can do, except way better. He has more extreme groundball tendencies. He racks up innings. Plus, he gets more K's, walks fewer batters, and is far far more lefthanded. He is also 6 years younger.
The option is the key. If Mulder gets back to his old self, the option will be a bargain. If he doesn't, you just don't exercise it. Simple as that.
Beyond 2007, there is absolutely no downside. You don't have to start thinking of how difficult it will be to trade that contract right after signing it. If it works out, sweet. If not, re-invest that money in a legitimately good player.
I see the decision as similar to chosing between buying a really shitty sandwich or a lottery scratch ticket. You know that sandwich is going to suck. The chances of winning the scratch ticket aren't that good, but, even if it doesn't work out, you don't get stuck with a shitty ass sandwich.
Sure, its pissing away money. But it wouldn't keep the M's from also signing a guy like John Thomson and Jason Jennings. Since the money won't roll over into 2008 anyhow, why not? There aren't any other good alternatives.
Jerry - December 11, 2006
poetry corner?
lucky m's, getting the poet laureate of mlb.lexomatic - December 11, 2006
It's almost an Ms commercial waiting to happen
Batista reciting poetry over Ben Broussard's acoustic guitar musings whilst Willie cooks beans on the campfire.Alex B - December 11, 2006
Apathy......
Ever since the winter meetings, I have had a general feeling of apathy regarding the M's. I used to look forward to this time of year and the promise of a new tomorrow, but having been a fan since 1978, I approach 28 years of fandom and am beginning to no longer care. Thank you Bill Bavasi, for taking the one thing I always thought would be a constant, M's baseball and ruining it for me.Dollar97 - December 11, 2006
Heh...
"Ever since the winter meetings"?That was like four days ago.
Jeff Sullivan - December 11, 2006
Jeff its called a drinking coma
Scruffy Lefty - December 11, 2006
I've always held onto hope...
but that hope has been dashed on the rocky shores of ineptitude...Dollar97 - December 11, 2006
Hey, remember the 80's
Like the last few years, this offseason has been a bummer. But let's not lose perspective. Nothing can match the Argyros decade for pure, undiluted misery.G_ - December 11, 2006
Very well, do I remember 'em...
When the M's have another Griffey Jr. coming around the corner, then I'll start thinking positive again...PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
So true...so true
Many of the posters on this site weren't born or barely aware of the M's in the 80s.They should be thankful for that.
marc w - December 11, 2006
Thank god I was like 5
during those yearsScruffy Lefty - December 11, 2006
I survived Bill Plummer
and was a Lefebrve believer....now, I want to attend a meeting at Mariners Anonymous....Dollar97 - December 11, 2006
Well
Instead, I was watching the Phillies degenerate in the 80's.Deanna - December 11, 2006
Mitch Williams....et. al.
I'm so sorry...Dollar97 - December 11, 2006
No, dude
That was 1993. The one good year. But I moved away from Philly the year after that. I'm talking the 80's days when Von Hayes was my favorite player, see.Deanna - December 11, 2006
At my age....
they all kinda run together....the 80's were very good to me....just can't remember much of it...sighDollar97 - December 11, 2006
I liked Mitch Williams
I met him at an Angels game once when he came up with the Rangers. He just wanted to hang out and chat with the fans near the bullpen, and shoot the shit.He was contrasting his road to the majors with that of Rangers slugging phenom (a true immortal of 80s baseball) Pete Incaviglia.
(Pete never played in the minors coming up; like Olerud he went straight from college to MLB. Mitch played several years in the minors, but started at age 17, which meant he was still younger than Inky when they both made the show).
marc w - December 11, 2006
Wheeeee
We had Inky on that awesome '93 Phillies team too :)I was at a Phillies game late in the 2005 season and Mitch Williams was attending the game.
They showed him on the big screen with a "Phillies welcome Mitch Williams!", and I remarked to my friend, "Wow, they're actually letting Wild Thing come within the city limits of Philadelphia again?"
Deanna - December 11, 2006
I dunno...
Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton had to have been much, much more interesting to watch than, say, Danny Tartabull or Alvin Davis and even Mark Langston...PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
And...
...I'd take Kent Tekulve 9 days a week over Lee Guetterman...PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
Yeah, they were, but
again, I was watching them get old. Steve Carlton was already 32 when I was born. Though, as a left-handed kid, Carlton was one of my heroes growing up. And yeah, I really did like Mike Schmidt. It wasn't until years later that I realized exactly how awesome he was, though, of course.And either way, the team sucked and lost a lot of games in the time period when I was really learning about baseball. So growing up in Seattle would have had about the same effect, I'm sure.
Deanna - December 11, 2006
Maybe in the late 80's
but they went to the WS twice in the 80's, then once in the 90's.That may be three more times than the M's ever go.
Also, Deanna, here it is, straight from your Christmas wish list -- http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2362763
ppl4life - December 11, 2006
Right, but
it took them 97 years to win one! So the Mariners have another, oh, 67 years to go.Hey, that's cool, the DVD has footage from the 1950 series? I was just reading up a series that a Phillies blogger did on the Whiz Kids a few weeks ago. Good stuff. Shame it doesn't have 1915 :)
Deanna - December 11, 2006
That, and...
It's one thing to have never tasted success, and to know that your team doesn't have any talent, and likely would never spend the money to keep any talent it may have shockingly developed, and to know that your team is pretty much going to suck. It's a whole 'nuther thing to know that your team is/was sooo close to being a contendor, and that all they needed was a smart upgrade or two to keep irons in the division playoff race fire. Especially when you know that said team is not exactly hurting for cash, and refuses to spend it wisely.PositivePaul - December 11, 2006
It is better to have loved and lost
than to never have loved at all.Yeah, things are frustrating right now, but nowhere near as bad as the 1980s.
There was no hope in the 1980s. The 1980s Mariners did everything wrong. They drafted poorly. They developed players poorly. For the few legitimate prospects who did develop, management blocked them with inferior players(Danny Tartabull, Harold Reynolds, Edgar Martinez). They traded away most of the decent players in their arbitration years to save money. They spent no money on free agents, and made trades only to save money, not to make the team more competitive. The only new acquisitions were a steady stream of washed up players trying to hang on for one more year (Pat Putnam, Richie Zisk, Gorman Thomas, Steve Balboni). They filled line-ups with low OBP hitters and entire rosters with Bloomquist-level producers. There was a constant threat to move the team. The team was marketed horribly. The uniforms were ugly. The Kingdome was depressing. The seats were uncomfortable and angled away from the infield. Even the food was bad.
With apologies to our friends at Royals Review, take the pre-Moore Royals, take away Alex Gordon, Billy Butler, and Luke Hochevar, and make them play in the Metrodome, and you have the 1980s Mariners.
G_ - December 11, 2006
The oldest I was in the 80s
was -1.Mariner John - December 11, 2006
Rosenthal is saying it's done, pending a physical
It's a 3 year deal, no idea on the money involved.Goose - December 11, 2006
30 innings, mid-4's ERA
would make Batista our staff ace, if he could maintain that.After all, Safeco is a pitcher's park. Just not for Mariners pitchers.
But mid-4's would be nice, if he could pull it off. He won't, though.
Tom2000 - December 11, 2006
30 innings?
you mean 30 starts?Scruffy Lefty - December 11, 2006
Oops!!!!
Yes, I meant 30 starts. I sure hope I meant starts and not innings!I sure hope the Typo god wasn't trying to tell me something. :-)
Tom2000 - December 11, 2006
Actually
I think Batista is very capable of pulling of a mid 4 era, maybe even better if things go right.Im not a big fan of over 8 mil a year for him, but I actually really like this signing. I think Batista will have a solid season.
MFAN - December 11, 2006
A solid season is one thing.
What about three of them?Jeff Sullivan - December 11, 2006
thats what I don't like about the deal
I have no problem with Batista in our rotation, but im not a fan of 3yr/8+ mil per season.MFAN - December 11, 2006
I mentioned this earlier today in an email...
but what does it tell you when your first thought after signing a free agent is whether or not you'll be able to trade him away in a year?Jeff Sullivan - December 11, 2006
It means that
he's qualified to be the BAEK OF THE ROTATION guy!Deanna - December 11, 2006
Given the market for SP's...
shouldn't we delay all the, "why not just sign Thomson for a handfull of pocketchange to a one-year contract?" or "why not just trade Mateo to the Yankees for Carl Pavano?" comments? Maybe those aren't realistic options.John Thomson might wind up signing for ridiculous $$$ too. I haven't seen anyone signed cheaply... so as much as I hate to defend Bavasi... what is he supposed to do? Spend $53 million just for the right to argue with Scott Boras over DiceK? The Royals are even ponying up big time for Gilgamesh. Everyone here wants to give Bavasi an "F" grade, so what should we give Theo Epstein? An "F-"?
Whoever said, Bavasi has to do something to save his job... is dead right, even if these moves are less than spectacular. Personally, I'd rather suffer through a throw-away season of watching all our prospects get playing time myself... but Bill has to try to put a winner on the field without busting the budget, and he's doing a reasonable job of that.
johnbai - December 11, 2006
Who said trade Mateo for Pavano?
Scruffy Lefty - December 11, 2006
Kip Wells was pretty cheap
Mariner John - December 11, 2006
Yeah, but Kip Wells sucks.
Deanna - December 11, 2006
So does Jason Marquis
but not as much I guess.Mariner John - December 11, 2006
re: Given the market for SP's...
how is giving Batista, a 36 year-old really bad pitcher, improving the team? If they were to sign thomson - which is there to be had - we could signed him to a 1 year deal and thus not been linked to yet another bad contract. Being saddled with a 9 mill contract to a player who probalby won't even be a .500 pitcher is just horrible. Batista has had his career - there is no upside to him, there is no IF he pitches like this - this will happen. We already know what will happen and the sad thing is - it's just going to get worse as he gets older. 9mill for a guy that will have an era around 5 and a record of 10-13 - yippee - money well spent Bill!!! Way to save your job!!!Atleast if he would have signed Thomson to 1 year he could have made the argument that this years FA sucked and he just did 1 year deals not to hurt the team. But a 3 year deal to this guy is a joke and seriously hurts the team... if you can't see that - then your are part of the M's FO.
Lamda - December 11, 2006
Really bad pitcher?
And seriously, who cares about Win/Loss anymore?Mariner John - December 11, 2006
If FA pitching is too expensive
don't sign FA pitchers.Jeff Sullivan - December 11, 2006
Hey guys where's the love?
C'mon. There was so much optimism here before the winter meetings, and it's all dissipated like that pidgeon that though it could make it past a Randy Johnson pitch. Really.Now, I know we haven't gotten much better. But the team has improved with this trade and this signing. Perhaps it could have improved more (OK, it definitely could have improved more). But the Mariners are a better team now than they were a week ago. Its the cost that's driving everyone nuts.
Let's not get crushed because of how 45 million of the payroll will be tied up in two years. Not yet anyhow. Next year hasn't happened yet, and to me it doesn't look that bad. Jerry was going on about how much better Oakland's rotation is than ours.
It was much, much better last year as well, except last year their aces were injured most of the time, and it was the Batistas, Ramirez(es), and the Lehrs that Beane had stockpiled that got them through tghe season. We have a good offense, and now our pitching will be at the very least league average, with some (not much, admittedly) upside.
And before you start calling it the worst run organization in baseball, let's just take a moment to consider the moves made by the Cubs (over a quarter billion spent this offseason) and Orioles (Baez, anyone? Oh, and the trade for LaRoche that was nixed because 'Brian Roberts is popular'?). Or imagine what it feels like to be a Marlins fan? Reds? I mean, there's a lawsuit over how stupid a deal Krivsky made.
Things aren't good, but they ain't all that bad either. I think M's can finish over .500, and if last year was any indication, that means they have a shot at the WS.
Bearskin Rugburn - December 11, 2006
oops
Sorry, bum link. I'm pretty new to html. Anyway, I think everyone knows what I meant.Bearskin Rugburn - December 11, 2006
No it doesn't
We're not in the National League.Goose - December 11, 2006
We're not better than we were
the trade with Atlanta made the team worse, not better.Rollo Tomasi - December 12, 2006
That's not true
Our bullpen is among the best in both leagues. Losing Soriano hurts it, but not by much. Its still going to be awesome next year.Having depth in starters is harder to achieve than depth in the bullpen. Ours is still plenty deep, and now there's one more guy who can cover the first 6 innings.
It was a shitty deal not because we are so much worse without soriano as because he could have fetched a much better return.
Bearskin Rugburn - December 12, 2006
Losing Soriano AND Lowe (forever?) though
means lots of high-leverage Mateo, I fear.Alex B - December 12, 2006
Guys face the facts
our offense is going to score more and our starting pitching is overpaid but going to perform better than they did last year. Think for a second how Pineiro did ~6.5 ERA for 100+ innings. Thats got to be one of the worst performances of all time. I wonder if that's a record or something. Our defense is much better with Ichiro in center and our offense is really solid.Edgar for Pres - December 12, 2006
Marquis had a worse year
Scruffy Lefty - December 12, 2006
It's Lima-Time!
6.99 ERA in 168+ innings in 2005.Oh, and he also had a 6.65 ERA in 196+ innings in 2000.
If there's ever a Hacking Mass Hall of Fame, Lima's got to be the first inductee.
marc w - December 12, 2006
Don't really disagree much with that
But your original contention was "Our bullpen is among the best in both leagues". Of that, I'm not so sure...Alex B - December 12, 2006
Yeah thats
really tough to say. Relievers bounce around all over the place. I'm pretty sure we are in the top 5 and if some guys perform well we have a chance to have the best but its tough to say.Edgar for Pres - December 12, 2006
I stand by it
Lowe was only part of it for a month and a half. He was a pleasant surprise, but not a crucial part of the BP. Mateo is not as bad as he was last year. Putz is our closer, not Eddie. There's a number of arms in Tacoma that could ably fill in for Soriano. The relief corps may be weaker than last September, but as good as last April/May.Bearskin Rugburn - December 12, 2006
I'm excited
to see if Huber is actually good.Edgar for Pres - December 12, 2006
He sure as hell better be.
Jeff Sullivan - December 12, 2006
I'm thinking solid
I'm with MT on the bullpen still being good. We still have Putz, and he'll be our closer for the duration, rather than us watching Eddie blow games for half a season. We still have GS52 and Huber can probably give us at least a solid performance, which should cover for what Raffy gave us. (Don't forget Raffy, save for the head shot, missed time during the season due to shoulder issues) And Mateo may not be all that great, but he's better than last season's crap performance. And whoever loses out for the 5th SP slot between Baek and Woods should hold up fine as the long guy.Gomez - December 12, 2006
Not to mention that maybe
Just maybe, Lowe might be back bu June and if he's able to still be as awesome as he was in 2006, he can pretty much fill in for Soriano all by himself.Goose - December 12, 2006
Also, lest we forget
building a good bullpen is still supposed to be ridiculously easy, right?Gomez - December 14, 2006
Miguel Batista?
Well... the Mariners could have done a lot worse.I can live with this, even for the money involved. It's not Batista's fault we signed Washburn, Sexson and Guillen.
Gomez - December 11, 2006
Batista
This is not a bad signing. His strikeout/walk ratio is not the best but he does not give up home runs. He'll give them innings too. But man teams are throwing around a lot of money on average players this year.Lee
tiger337 - December 11, 2006
Any idea how much the average salary will rise?
It must be close to 3.5 or 4 million now.Mariner John - December 11, 2006
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.