Note: if Happ and/or Blanton are involved, and they're coming here, then that would change things, but I'm not going to speculate any more than I have to.
So, we can't yet be sure what we're going to be giving up here, but that doesn't mean we can't make some educated guesses and speculate.
The big key, for me, is Michael Saunders. I've made no secret of how much I like Saunders, and how I think he compares pretty favorably to a guy like Randy Winn. Despite his initial Major League flop, Saunders is an athletic 23 year old corner outfielder who runs well, plays easy defense, has a solid idea of the strike zone, and who hits for reasonable power from the left side of the plate. Like Winn, he doesn't excel at any one thing, but he earns good marks pretty much across the board, making him a smart gamble with medium upside. Being that he's under team control for six years, Saunders is a greatly underrated asset, and I would really hate to lose him here. Cliff Lee is awesome, but I'd have a tough time stomaching the sacrifice of six years of Saunders for (probably) one of Lee when the team still isn't that strong.
After Saunders, though...honestly, if you remove Saunders from the equation, it's hard to come up with a package that I wouldn't like. Brandon Morrow would be a loss, but he doesn't have the same team control duration as Saunders, and he's way less dependable. Morrow didn't make any progress last year, he has yet to show any ability to stick as a starter, and his secondary stuff hasn't developed from where it was when he was drafted. Morrow's been blessed with incredible talent, but he hasn't built on it, which makes him easier to lose.
And then you end up talking about minor leaguers, Phillippe Aumont's being the most recognizable name. But, at least as a Mariner, Aumont's in the bullpen. Relievers simply aren't very valuable unless they develop into the best of the best, and the odds are against that happening. While Aumont has great stuff and should make the Majors, it's questionable whether he ever gains the command to reach the upper level. Then you've got guys like Juan Ramirez, a solid but by no means can't-miss starter in high-A, and Tyson Gillies, a slap-hitting speedy outfielder with low upside...these are nice prospects to have, but they're not the sort of prospects you freak out over when you have the opportunity to land a Cliff Lee. Carlos Triunfel would kind of suck to lose, but I don't think he'd be moved after a lost season.
I don't know what the Mariners are going to surrender in this deal. There are plenty of rumors circling around, but no confirmation. With that said, as long as Michael Saunders isn't involved - and I'm guessing that he isn't - I think I'm going to be thrilled. It's weird for a team in Seattle's situation to go after a potential one-year star like Cliff Lee, but when you don't actually have to lose that much of significant value, you seize the chance without a second thought. Let this be a lesson to those of you who thought our front office was too concerned with efficiency to land a big name - Jack Zduriencik is one ballsy son of a bitch.
0 recs | 738 comments
JUST GIVE THEM JOSE LOPEZ!
Slurvey - December 14, 2009
God this is going to be so annoying if Saunders is part of it
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
Well...this came out of nowhere.
Well, going from a rumor to being “close to done”, that is.
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
PLEASE be us giving them relievers and not Saunders!
ARock - December 14, 2009
Halman, maybe?
He’s still a huge risk, but I could see the other teams liking him.
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
Haulman
:o)
greymstreet - December 14, 2009
Saunders won't be in it...
He actually does things that Zduriencik likes.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
Who doesn't like what he does though?
njd.aitken - December 14, 2009
Bavasi.
He’s anti-Canadian.
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
Not really?
We got Bedard, Aumont, Gillies, and Buckborough under Bavasi’s reign.
JY - December 14, 2009
Shhh, they're not really Canadian!
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
Dayton Moore Probably...
And Amaro did sign Ibanez forever, so he probably doesn’t either.
DKulich44 - December 14, 2009
It was more in the context of...
Zduriencik doesn’t appear to be a huge fan of Aumont or Morrow, meaning they’re more likely to be involved.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
Ding ding ding.
It’s pretty clear that Zduriencik was not overly fond of how we used to draft.
JY - December 14, 2009
No Saunders or Triunfel, please
I’d very much like them to stay.
russak - December 14, 2009
I seriously doubt they'd give up Tri.
And I haven’t even seen his name thrown around since the very first rumor.
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
That makes me feel better
russak - December 14, 2009
That is the only thing that worries me.
I really don’t wanna lose Triunfel.
Z0827 - December 14, 2009
I'd rather lose him than Saunders, I think.
Triunfel could be a useful MLB player. Saunders is already there.
Teej - December 14, 2009
It blows my mind that the M's are now a "big-market club" preying on weaker organizations
We’re not NYY or Boston, but still, wow. It’s a brave new world.
lemonverbena - December 14, 2009
My idea of "big-market club" is one that can sustain a $100MM payroll
and that’s the Mariners, in my opinion.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
'07 and '08 we were able to
2009 we were almost at $100 mil, all this according to Cot’s. I see no reason why we cannot stay above $100 mil. We have deep pockets, not quite to Boston’s or New York’s level, but we are definitely in the top half of baseball. Even this year when we were cutting salary, we had the 10th highest payroll in baseball.
edddgar - December 14, 2009
Whoops, my mistake, I read that as
edddgar - December 14, 2009
I would be
Really sad if we traded Saunders, I’ve been really fond of him and have high hopes for him and this club.
ungoreatstefan - December 14, 2009
What's fun is that there is still that ~5% chance it's Hamels
which would be both more awesome and less exciting.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
What if Blanton's involved?
Jayson Stark is reporting that the Phillies tried to trade Blanton previously, and that he (and A.J. Happ) took physicals today. What if the reason we haven’t heard what the final package from the M’s will be is because there is some haggling over which Phillies pitcher(s) and which M’s players will be exchanged. Would getting Blanton as well as Lee (or Hamels or Happ) be worth Aumont, Saunders AND Gillies?
short - December 14, 2009
J.A. Happ
Not A.J. But I’m sure you figured that out, you clever devils.
short - December 14, 2009
Getting another starting pitcher couldn't hurt but I'm sure Jack isn't giving up much extra for it
So why would Philly include it?
njd.aitken - December 14, 2009
The M's might be including better guys
I just wonder if that’s why we haven’t got names yet. The M’s ask for Blanton, too…the Phillies demand Saunders instead of Gillies…the M’s counter-offer Morrow…M’s fans slowly lose their minds.
short - December 14, 2009
I agree with you
I really don’t want Saunders in the deal, but aside from that, if this goes down, I’m completely stoked.
The Ancient Mariner - December 14, 2009
oh god
http://twitter.com/elliottbaseball/status/6679254024
People now saying Aumont not in the deal
If Z managed to get Cliff Lee for Gilles+Ramirez, I’m shaving my head bald in honor of the man.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
So then it's probably someone else.
abender20 - December 14, 2009
please be jose lopez please be jose lopez please be jose lopez please be jose lopez
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
Yeah, Aaron Hill and Chase Utley totally suck ass.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Lopez > Aumont in my mind
Edgar for Pres - December 14, 2009
Then you're not criminally insane
Lopez is a repeatable, league average player for cheap right now. Aumont, at least with GMZ in charge is a relief prospect. You’d have to guarantee me Aumont was the second coming of Mariano Rivera before he’s worth more than Lopez.
seattlebruin - December 14, 2009
*Cough, cough*
Sure Dave, whatever yoy say…
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
Except he's right.
abender20 - December 14, 2009
Shhhh, you can't let him know that!
You have to tell him he’s wrong or he’ll never leave!
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
Then why are we both back here?
qrsouther - December 14, 2009
I could see Aumont being swapped out for Morrow.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Or what Mr. Nye said.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
If Aumont isn't in the deal, Morrow probably is
So I wouldn’t get too excited yet.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
Of the people we can move, Aumont is one of the best.
He’ll be more highly valued elsewhere than here.
Matthew - December 14, 2009
I still wish he was a starter, but I'll never cry over losing a reliever.
abender20 - December 14, 2009
I still want someone else that I recognize to say Aumont isn't in the deal before I believe it.
It makes too much sense for the Blue Jays.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
Rafael Soriano for Horacio Ramírez almost made me cry.
InSpokane - December 14, 2009
Giving someone else money to lose Aumont would upset me too
seattlebruin - December 14, 2009
This deal needs to get done, now, as it was stated earlier.
If we spend the next two days with varying levels of horror and elation as names are swapped in and out I’m going to lose my mind.
JY - December 14, 2009
Halfway there already
Now they’re throwing Blanton and Happ into the mix, GOD
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
Fuck.
I’m getting some food and shutting off my internets for a while. I can’t take this.
JY - December 14, 2009
Three hours later...
#
$&^*JY - December 14, 2009
I was just having the same thought.
abender20 - December 14, 2009
I think tomorrow is when I get fired because I refuse to do my job because I keep refreshing LL and rotoworld.
Goose - December 14, 2009
Shannon chimes in from her blog:
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Update from Trade Rumors:
6:55pm: J.A. Happ and Joe Blanton took physicals and could be a part of the deal, writes Rob Maaddi of the Associated Press.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
We better be fucking getting Lee
gregrabble - December 14, 2009
Damn right. I can't take another we-got-him-now-we-don't.
stupidquestions - December 14, 2009
I have to assume one of them's going to Toronto
and the other’s coming here for a slight increase in the value of the deal.
Probably Happ to TOR, Blanton to SEA for whatever-the-hell-the-final-deal-ends-up-being.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
So Lee and Blanton to SEA?
BrettJMiller - December 14, 2009
Meh.
tait644 - December 14, 2009
Joe Blanton is league averagey and cheap.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
But we don't have Jason Ellison around to protect Ichiro anymore.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
All this team needs is more people that want to throw Ichiro against a wall.
Griffey can protect Ichiro from Cupcake.
mark sobba - December 14, 2009
Just because they may be a part of the deal doesn't necessarily mean we're getting them.
BrettJMiller - December 14, 2009
I doubt Toronto's getting both of them. They're getting a ton of prospects already.
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
Toronto might get one of them.
In exchange for the Phillies keeping more prospects.
JY - December 14, 2009
It's not impossible they're part of a different deal, too.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
No Blanton. I don't like.
royalcurve - December 14, 2009
At least the deal would be decidedly pear-shaped at that point.
abender20 - December 14, 2009
Is this a fat joke?
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I think so, and a nice one.
qrsouther - December 14, 2009
True.
royalcurve - December 14, 2009
Agreed. This is one cupcake I wouldn't take!
(WWWWOOOO!!! says my at home studio audience.)
mark sobba - December 14, 2009
This is a relief!!
“Adam Moore does not appear to be in the deal nor does Michael Saunders though the Blue Jays are believed to have interest in him.”
YAY!
ARock - December 14, 2009
oh god yes it gets better
7:04pm: Drabek and “other top [Phillies] prospects” will be involved in the deal, according to Jim Salisbury of CSNPhilly.com (via Twitter). According to Salisbury, Brown will remain with the club.
http://twitter.com/JSalisburyCSN/status/6679492263
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
Guys I just read a tweet from Geoff Baker that says yo mamma has taken a physical and is now involved in the deal
JLC - December 14, 2009
Well, we're not getting anything official until Wednesday
so time to just repeat eighth-hand rumors till then.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
Huh. Saw Stark on ESPN awhile ago saying Aumont was included because Phils wouldn't give up Drabek
drblacknwhite - December 14, 2009
We wouldn't be getting Drabek, so who cares?
abender20 - December 14, 2009
So Philly got Bedarded
and we throw in a couple good-but-not-lifechanging prospects and get Cliff Lee.
I like having a smart GM.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
Philly is getting Roy Halladay.
Goose - December 14, 2009
I'm not even sure if we're getting Cliff Lee now
JLC - December 14, 2009
I could see Bavasi trading to get Ibanez back...
tait644 - December 14, 2009
I wouldn't be too worried about that.
Every version I’ve heard of this (aside from Hamels mentions very early on) has Lee coming to Seattle.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
If we're giving up more than Aumont/Ramirez/Gillies I want an extension before deal is done
russak - December 14, 2009
I don't
Not for what Lee wants
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
If what he wants is that outlandish and the Phils or Jays want Saunders than I'd just rather not do it.
russak - December 14, 2009
Brandon Morrow is JC Ramirez in three years
whatever
seattlebruin - December 14, 2009
I'm officially done fretting until it's final.
This is spiraling into madness.
abender20 - December 14, 2009
Jonathan Mayo tweet
“No true confirmations on prospects heading to Jays yet. It could be Aumont and maybe Saunders or Triunfel from M’s; Brown plus 1 from Phils”
Ahahahahahahahaha I love twitter.
JLC - December 14, 2009
i say no
If Triunfel is in the mix. Morrow Aumont and a throwin should suffice.
Buckyfan - December 14, 2009 via mobile
Anthroupoulos really loves Canadian players apparently
Interestingly enough he is Canadian also.
I would really hate to lose Gillies. Probably my favorite minor leaguer in our system right now. I could easily see him doing what Ichiro has been doing for us the next ten years. That is of course if Ichiro actually becomes human.
tdot mariner fan - December 14, 2009
what
Goose - December 14, 2009
He means that he could easily see Gillies playing right field on a baseball team for the next ten years.
abender20 - December 14, 2009
Why?
He’s a centerfielder. Ichiro is good enough to play wherever he damn well pleases. Gillies isn’t.
JY - December 14, 2009
Canadians are notorious xenophobes.
Jed MC - December 14, 2009
Maybe we can forge Rob Johnson a Canadian passport
and sell his amazing defense. The jays need a catcher apparently.
tdot mariner fan - December 14, 2009
fuck this deal's getting worse and worse
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
I have no idea why you are panicking.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
You should calm down.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
.
msb - December 14, 2009
OH GOD
/Mass hysteria
russak - December 14, 2009
Alright, let's just stay calm here! Don't get all crazy on me!
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
Pretty difficult with Saunders and Triunfel being talked about.
russak - December 14, 2009
Don't worry, GMZ just played his reverse card
So we’re actually getting Roy Halladay. Serves Amaro right for playing his Draw Two.
JLC - December 14, 2009
I just heard that we're trading Ichiro, Felix and Saunders for Cliff Lee and $3M
seattlebruin - December 14, 2009
Also, GMZ threw in a homemade apple pie from his wife
seattlebruin - December 14, 2009
And his own head sander!
NOOOOOO!
Coach Owens - December 14, 2009
You have that wrong.
We’re sending the $3 million, not getting it back.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I knew I read that tweet wrong
stupid me
seattlebruin - December 14, 2009
Update: Plus a PTBNL
New update: The PTBNL is Ackley….. FUCK
JLC - December 14, 2009
This tree you talk of. Does it burn?
pdb - December 14, 2009
Are you eight?
qrsouther - December 14, 2009
Just throwing this out there
But I didn’t start cussing like that until at least 9.
calim - December 14, 2009
He's reminding me of this kid axemen23 over at Addicted to Quack.
qrsouther - December 14, 2009
A few thoughts:
1) Just because other people might be involved in the deal doesn’t mean anything important or relevant has happened.
2) We don’t know anything we didn’t know 2 hours ago, which is lame, but it doesn’t mean anything.
3) Those broadcasts about Happ and Blanton from ESPN didn’t even say they were involved in the trade, just physicals.
4) Nothing’s changed, nothing’s changed, nothing’s changed, nothing’s changed, nothing’s changed.
5) Seriously, nothing’s changed. If the deal was good two hours ago, it’s still fine.
6) Everyone but Saunders and possibly Triunfel is essentially useless on our team right now.
7) Most of the value of the players we lose will be regained by the draft picks we get when Lee leaves.
I have nothing negative to say about any of this news unless something happens to lead me to believe otherwise. Every name that’s mentioned only makes me happier (“We might get Happ too?! Sweet!”) rather than sad (“OH MY GOD, It’s Blanton instead of Lee!!!”) because there is no reason to think otherwise.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Smiley Emoticon!
=D
CapSea - December 14, 2009
LOUD NOISES
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
This is starting get a little stupid
InSpokane - December 14, 2009
For some reason I have Robert Downey, Jr. stuck in my head.
From Natural Born Killers. “I was there man! I was there when it all went down in Grenada!”
Kermit. - December 14, 2009
Perfect
InSpokane - December 14, 2009
This is starting to get stupid. And I'm done with it until we see something official.
Goose - December 14, 2009
If Triunfel is involved we better be getting Drabek.
Slurvey - December 14, 2009
OK I got a serious question... Don't attack me with rabid garden gnomes
The M’s had to replace 133 innings of 2.64 ERA from Washburn last year and 83 innings of 2.83 ERA from Bedard.
How much better does this make the M’s? I am serious.
Isn’t Lee’s projected production fairly equal to that?
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Non-attack serious answer
Don’t use ERA to evaluate pitchers. Most of that shiny ERA from Washburn was due to the defense behind him.
Nadingo - December 14, 2009
This is the key. Also consider this...
Those guys got to play in Safeco with the M’s OF defense, which makes them look super awesome. Lee did not.
SethGrandpa - December 14, 2009
A couple things
A) ERA isn’t a good judge of pitching ability
B) Lee replaces ONE of those two. Not both of them. You have to look at the value added by replacing Bedard+Washburn with Lee+another starter.
C) Innings Pitched. Being able to pitch past the 6th inning, saving our bullpen arms every once in a while.
Fuckmikereilly - December 14, 2009
but it is not the huge gain that everyone is making it out to be
Wasburn made 20 starts, Bedard 15. Lee made 34. Lee replaces both.
On average Wasburn/Bedard went slightly further into games than Lee so there is no gain in saving the bullpen.
I am not saying that Lee will not repeat or improve on his numbers. I am saying that Lee only replaces the value that those to provided last year. It has nothing to do with predictive value of future performance.
Lee can provide the same value next year that those 2 did for the M last year. There is no net improvement from year to year.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Lee has more potential to do this again
And possibly to perform even better. You can’t just look at last year and expect the same thing to happen. Washburn was lucky last year and benefited from a pitchers park and a great defense. Why wouldn’t Lee do the same and improve his expected numbers?
calim - December 14, 2009
The is a finite amount of improvement possible
this is not a linear improvement rate. Closer and closer you get to perfection, the harder it is to improve.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Don't be ridiculous
There is no such thing as perfection in baseball. There’s no such thing as even close to it, not over an extended period.
calim - December 14, 2009
It is true though that improvement is more difficult the better your team is.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
A guy with a 7 era
has a much greater ability to reduce his output through outside influence vs. a guy that naturally has a 3.00 ERA. You can only go so low.
It is the difference between linear and nonlinear. Same things are applied on a regular basis in learning curves for skills. There gets to a point that you can no longer perfect what you are doing and the rest of the fluctuation in output is just random noise.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Right, but you still have a problem
in that you are still using ERA. Washburn’s FIP was 4.58 last year, which leaves a considerable amount of improvement compared to Lee’s 3.11. Or Lee’s 6.6 WAR compared to Washburn’s 2.1 (which is the second highest of his career by the way).
levnclf - December 14, 2009
I think what he is saying is that even though those two pitchers sucked, they gave us very favorable results.
Results that we can only expect to be repeated, not beaten, by the new pitcher. ERA may not be how good the pitcher is, but it is the results of how well the pitcher did.
And my response to this is that at the moment we are building our team off expected contributions without paying attention to last year’s over/under achievers, so when we talk about the value that Lee will bring, it’s about the team as currently constructed, not the team as they achieved last year.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
But that's a measure of our defence and not the pitcher anyway
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
Yeah, of course - in terms of how well a pitcher did.
But, for example, if Washburn throws a perfect game but gave up 15 line drives and was saved by our amazing defense, you can’t say “Man, if I could go back in time, I wished Lee pitched that game because he’d be a great improvement.” You can’t really improve on amazing results.
To which the response of course is, again, you are right you can’t improve on results, but when we are talking about this next year’s team, we’re not looking at how we did last year.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
We don't care what we were last year
We care where we are now relative to where we were a day ago.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
which means that relative to the performance of the team as a whole from last year
this is a negligible gain.
It is a vast improvement from yesterday. But not a dramatic change from last season.
I like the move. But it does not mean that the staff as a whole will have signifgantly improved numbers from last year.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
But it is because Washburn wasn't good and Bedard never pitched.
I suppose I see what point you’re trying to make but I don’t think you’re doing a very good job of making it because I don’t think it’s a valid point.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
The point is that the staff as a whole results wise should not be
greatly different from last year.
The variability in the results will have diminished greatly due to the fact that 2 guys that got by on luck and the performance of others are gone and is replaced by a starter that should provide the same results with out the need of those outside variables.
As a whole, the staff projection this year should now equal last actual output.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
OK
Well then, this year we don’t have to rely on luck. That’s good, and if we get more luck, it’s even better.
calim - December 14, 2009
Exactly
The problem is that last years luck is just a likely to be negative as positive or neutral. All this move really did was dramatically increase the likelihood that next years staff should equal last years production.
I
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Last year's pitching staff had the #1 ERA in the league
That’s awesome. Because we’re probably not going to score 640 runs again.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Well, one hopes not.
sammy - December 14, 2009
hopefully not
but the chance that the team improves over last years win total is going to be heavily influenced by the net changes on the offensive side of the ball.
The team should repeat as a top 5 unit in total run prevention. How much more offense is produced is going to determine the teams net gain in wins not Lee addition to the staff.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Without Lee, we would lose more because our run prevention would be worse
Hence, Lee helps.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
You're also missing the Lee is not taking two roster spots.
Lee+ another should be better than Bedard/Washburn.
Kirk - December 14, 2009 via mobile
Try this exercise
Open a new document in Word or a spreadsheet.
1. Put down all 25 spots
2. Fill the roster with only players on the current 40 man roster
3. Use Fangraphs to find the W.A.R. of each player and make a guess on your sheet for each player.
4. Add it up and add 50 Wins (a team of all Replacement players would win ~50 games.)
Today on my sheet I took off Morrow and added Lee. I had Morrow down for 2 Wins above Replacement. I have Lee down for 5 Wins above Replacement. Which brings my prediction of the team to be 85 WINS next year. As the team changes with future signing it will go up or down. It is just an exercise and not reality. Give it a try. It might be able to answer your question.
mark sobba - December 14, 2009
I think replacement is at 44 or 47 wins.
But I’m not entirely sure.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
People have pegged it all kinds of different numbers
I’ve seen anywhere from 36 to 50. Mid-40’s or so seems to be most prevelant. And really, for our purposes, it doesn’t matter that much.
nathaniel dawson - December 14, 2009
It matters a ton.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
This is something each person does on their own sheets as well as each team.
I go with 48 actually. I give each non-bullpen guy 0.3 WAR to being it to 51 and go from there.
The goal being to get to 93 wins. I trend to be hopeful in some players and causious with other players.
mark sobba - December 14, 2009
I'm like 90% sure that Dave Cameron said that it's about 46 wins at some point on Fangraphs, but I can't find it.
Decatur - December 14, 2009
Well, that's the thing, it changes year to year.
I am more curious what you project replacement as. I think the 46 you mentioned was what it was in 2008, but don’t quote me on that.
CapSea - December 15, 2009
Dave has also used ~46 wins on USSM more than once.
ToddK - December 15, 2009
Results-based analysis is flawed.
redwolf75 - December 14, 2009
Or this
calim - December 14, 2009
I think the idea
is that result-based analysis is flawed when trying to predict future performance. I don’t see the problem in trying to measure the margin between future expected results with past results.
Washburn may have overachieved for us based on a non-results oriented stat (like TRA) but that doesn’t change the results he did end up achieving.
sammy - December 14, 2009
Washburn took advantage of the park and defense.
So will Cliff Lee. Philly plays in a bandbox and has mediocre OF defense. If he ends up in Safeco he will benefit.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
You'd also have to assume that Washburn would be able to continue that level of success.
Even though he benefited from the defense behind him you don’t really want to tempt fate again to see if he can flirt with a sub 3 ERA.
Slurvey - December 14, 2009
That has no bearing on next years expected overall results mirroring last years actual results
This is a great move to replace those 2 because they would not repeat last years results. But that does not mean that last years results did not happen. All this move does is solidify the projections that this year will repeat last years results.
This in the whole scheme of thing in a neutral move. Unless someone dramatically improves or implodes the projection this year would now equal last years output.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Well, if that means we're an 84-win team again
Plus whatever we can gain from the money we have left to spend, then that’s good.
calim - December 14, 2009
thats is kind of the point
this is not a move that gains wins. This is a move that would solidify the variability of potential losses.
So now it is up to the changes in the offensive production to predict if this is a net increase or decrease in wins vs. last season.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
This is absolutely a move that gains wins
We have more wins now (or when the trade is done) than we did last week. That’s the only thing we care about.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Once again, remember -
While your point on ERA is valid in my opinion, about how the best RESULTS we can expect are equal to what we got last year, we are not worried about last years team. All of these analyses are based on the team AS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED without any attention paid to the results of last year. All of these projections and guesses are based on how we expect players to do next year and only next year, as though we built the team from scratch starting November 2009.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
You can't replace the past.
This is exactly the kind of mentality Bavasi used to assemble the 2008. Replace Horacio Ramirez’s hideous 7-ish ERA with Carlos Silva and Jeff Weaver’s 5-ish ERA with Erik Bedard.
There are too many variables that can happen during a season. Constructing a roster on the basis of every single event in a past season being repeatable doesn’t make sense. Adding Cliff Lee doesn’t “replace” the results Washburn and Bedard made because you can’t replace events that happened in the past.
And for example, Texas shipped off Kevin Millwood and signed Rich Harden. That’s a pretty nice move for Texas….until you apply this kind of result based analysis to conclude that Rich Harden has to do better than Millwood’s 3.67 ERA (2.62 ERA through 15 games). Given this, Texas made their team worse with these moves. I’m not sure how the Rangers’ current roster shapes up but this is a bad way of determining how good it will be.
Cliff Lee makes the M’s quite a bit better than they were yesterday, which is what really matters.
ThundaPC - December 14, 2009
Where do all these names come from?
How is there a deal in place without the players going out being locked down?
Janic - December 14, 2009
AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH AAHHHHHHHH NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY YOU’RE KIDDING ME sdkjfsdkajflhsdalkjfhaslkjdfhk
DO SOMETHING BAD ALREADY JACK
.Taylor - December 14, 2009
Happ could be an interesting piece for the Mariners as a young, cheap. lefty flyballer.
If he got thrown in with Lee, I might not be so sad to see Saunders go.
FlaskInSafeco - December 14, 2009
How does Happ compare to Vargas, French, or Olsen?
Big Seahawk Loser - December 14, 2009
Favorably.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Better than all three.
sammy - December 14, 2009
I wonder if we can get Moyer back as a throw-in.
I like pitchers older than my parents pitching in the Majors.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
Isn't Moyer a free agent?
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Per cots Moyer is signed through '10
ToddK - December 15, 2009
Stark's proposed trade
SebastianPruiti - December 14, 2009
How delightfully vague.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Too bad Jack can't just toss Lopez into this storm
And come out with either Hill or Utley.
OceanBird - December 14, 2009
Too bad Felix is the only player we have to a remote chance at trading for Utley.
Hey, why don’t we throw is Jack Wilson for Jimmy Rollins while we are at it!
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
Too bad we don't have a first basemen set in stone
We could have gotten Ryan Howard :(
OceanBird - December 14, 2009
Thats ESPN for you.
Fin - December 14, 2009
So this probably doesn't matter since we're not getting him
But can someone tell me a bit about d’Arnaud? He’s the only name being batted around I haven’t heard of. Is he a throw in or someone Toronto would actually have interest in?
drblacknwhite - December 14, 2009
Phillies fan lurking you guys’ comments section here.
D’Arnaud was ranked by Baseball America as the Phillies’ 4th best prospect. He’s a catcher who can hit decently, which is always valuable. His numbers weren’t so great this season because of a horrible start and a lower than normal BABIP. He’s a couple of years away but he projects as a major league starter. His ceiling at the plate is probably AJ Pierzynski – solid contact hitter who is above average for his position.
yosoysean - December 14, 2009
Do Silva and Griffey count as prospects?
killer_ewok18 - December 14, 2009 via mobile
So the A's have kinda become irrelevant lately haven't they?
Goose - December 14, 2009
They traded away all of their stars for minor league stars.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
And so the cycle begins anew.
FlaskInSafeco - December 14, 2009
Ehh, they had a .500 pythW/L last year
Technically they were better than us. They’re just limited by what they have, and the division is getting smarter.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
And there's a case to be made that Beane is not as good as he once was.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
I doubt Beane has intellectually regressed
There are just fewer people for him to take advantage of.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Said case would also involve him caring less.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
That's possible but then I hate when people accuse players of being lazy
so I try to apply the same standard with executives.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Were I implying something I would clarify that it's not laziness so much as being distracted by new pursuits.
Were I implying anything.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
Yeah, the soccer probably doesn't help
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Beane's situation has definitely got to be rough.
I don’t understand why he didn’t jump to a higher budget team when he likely would have had the chance several years ago.
FlaskInSafeco - December 14, 2009
Fun of the challenge? Comfort at home?
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
He did have the chance.
“Fun of the challenge? Comfort at home?” and the partial ownership didn’t hurt.
msb - December 14, 2009
No wonder why their budget is so bad.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I guess I could see that,
from the comfort at home and distractions standpoint. But from the fun of the challenge standpoint, I would think it would still be a challenge with $40 million more in the budget each year. Winning the World Series ain’t easy.
FlaskInSafeco - December 14, 2009
I prefer not paying attention to this for another few hours and then coming back to find whatever is finalized.
qrsouther - December 14, 2009
A few hours may turn in to a few days then...
But yeah, I agree – it seems to be evolving at an alarming rate
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
I think there is a lot of panic for nothing.
We have seen what JZ values and what he does in trades. I really don’t see him giving up much in the way of top prospects. I would say obviously Aumont, but after him I don’t think he will give up too much. He knows that he will probably lose Lee after one year so why give up two more of Gillies, Triunfel, Kelley, or Saunders? He isn’t stupid. I am going to go ahead and say it will be Aumont, Gillies, and one other as a filler.
If the trade changes and Drabek enters and Lee exits, then all bets are off. I just hope Triunfel stays.
Z0827 - December 14, 2009
A lot of panic?
There is more jubilation among the rational people than there is panic.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I think in the first thread this was true.
This one seems now that people are thinking again about losing players they like. I am the same way, at first I was pretty excited, now I just keep thinking back to Bavasi and we are going to lose all the players I really want to see in M’s uniforms.
Z0827 - December 14, 2009
I'd like everyone to remember how freaked out some people were became about the Putz trade as time dragged on.
People started mentioning Triunfel and Moore and Saunders and the like. You know why? Because these people don’t know anything about the Mariners farm system, they don’t know anything about the value of prospects and they throw names into the mix to keep the interest in the story up. For the vast majority of baseball writers prospects are completely interchangable.
It may turn out that this deal isn’t as favorable as it might have seemed at first, but there’s no good reason to think that based on any of the information currently available.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
I have an irrational fear of losing Gillies. I just have a good feeling about him.
That said, I can’t believe how awesome our front office is.
thewyrm - December 14, 2009
I'm with you.
When I’m being completely rational, he’s really not that big of a loss. But I saw him play in Everett and that’s when you start thinking he’s going to be the greatest player in the history of ever. My buddy had the same feeling about Jamaal Strong a few years ago.
Kyle Rancourt - December 14, 2009
Does your buddy have a screen name on MLBTR called dbacks2007?
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
No, but that guy is awesome with irrationality.
Kyle Rancourt - December 14, 2009
This thread fucking sucks.
Goose - December 14, 2009
I concur
Paseman - December 14, 2009 via mobile
Any chance this is finalized today?
russak - December 14, 2009
Wednesday the soonest.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Not unless Halladay signs a deal.
And physicals will have to be completed.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
Aumont going to the phillies?
http://twitter.com/elliottbaseball/status/6682312434
Scruffy Lefty - December 14, 2009
I just have to think that if the Phillies were willing to move Drabek
Then they wouldn’t have needed to involve a third team like the Mariners.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
I think Bob Elliott is high
JLC - December 14, 2009
Well, pot is legal in Canada right?
SebastianPruiti - December 14, 2009
Not true
But I would never take anything Bob Elliot said seriously.
njd.aitken - December 14, 2009
Baker's hopped on the Aumont to Philly train
Could just be quoting Elliott though
drblacknwhite - December 14, 2009
New personal goal
Start bogus MLB trade rumor with multiple sources all citing each other, making a infinitely complex tangled web with an untraceable origin.
JLC - December 14, 2009
Isn't that what the Stock Market is?
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Prospect Insider?
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
This is fun
Scruffy Lefty - December 14, 2009
We are giving up too much for Lee
Who scared away philly about possibly wanting a sabathia type dealafter next season…thats not happening w/seattle or anyone else. Point is,hewants elite , superstar money.
Did we not learn from the bedard train wreck? Our offense was worst in scoring runs in the league. Giving up the only potential high upside batsremaining in the system for more pitching in a pitchers park, there’s no logic there.
I love Jack Z’s no fear, aggressive attitude, but we are like the AL San Francisco Giants. All pitching, not good hitting.
The only situation will be now to overpay Jason Bay, because there is no other option but to go all in now for 1 yr of great contending while Lee is here.
The phiilies are aware, they gave much less for Lee last season, we are like their pawn just to get halladay and give up less in the process.
Ifsaundersand/or triunful are in it, this looks much worse
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
Lee also comes with Type A status and draft picks!
Lee is a significantly better pitcher than Bedard!
Runs are runs!
BrianL - December 14, 2009
I agree we should go after Chesty Morgan instead.
JLC - December 14, 2009
What's wrong with a superstar wanting superstar money?
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
You don't know what we're giving up.
Teej - December 14, 2009
Nope.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
We're giving up less than the Phillies did.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
Happ
Dude – there’s no way he comes to Seattle. None. I mean, Zduriencik is only human.
And MagicMike – we just added a 5-win player. Lee is better than Bedard. Adam Jones is much better than anyone we are rumored to be giving up (Saunders excluded, but Jones is still > Saunders). Tillman was better than Ramirez or Morrow or Aumont. Sherrill was better than Aumont.
GET IT?
tait644 - December 14, 2009
We sure gave up a ton didn't we.
russak - December 14, 2009
Mickolio is also more valuable than whatever the last piece we give up is.
JY - December 14, 2009
I'm uncontrollably giddy...
Locker staying? Lee coming? Chone here? HOLY GOD IN HEAVEN!
THolt - December 14, 2009
B
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
Cameron to the BoSox
I love Boston’s roster. If they get Beltre they are the team to beat.
tait644 - December 14, 2009
Dammit.
I’m still unclear on the three-way… is Saunders staying or not? Anyone who can point me towards a reliable answer?
THolt - December 14, 2009
Cammy going to the Sox...
…is shit if Saunders is on his way out.
THolt - December 14, 2009
If Saunders is on the way out, I have to think we're making a big play at Bay.
sammy - December 14, 2009
I fucking hope not.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
Holliday!
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
Holliday couldnt hit in oakland
I doubt coming to safeco is an option unless overpaid. Basically its Bay or Bust, there’s really no choice.
Unless you like an offense with endy chavez, jack wilson, un named catcher, a part time griffey, etc
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
Realistically, how far away is Ackley?
THolt - December 14, 2009
Could this be some sort of indication of the org's attitude towards him?
THolt - December 14, 2009
A year, less if he flips out
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
OK. Zduriencik obv. thinks highly of him;
He was taking reps in left, right?
THolt - December 14, 2009
Or more than a year if he flips out wrong
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Flips out wrong, pulls a hammy, sidelined for months?
JY - December 14, 2009
Or kills a guy
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Villalona, then.
JY - December 14, 2009
I wouldn't be surprised to see him as a september call-up this year.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
GOD
Goose - December 14, 2009
Matt Holliday's wOBA was 28% better than the league average with Oakland and that was half a season
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Sample size much?
THolt - December 14, 2009
Wow dude.
He’s responding to Magic Mike saying he couldn’t hit in Oakland. Clearly he did.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
My fault.
Trust me, I rarely RARELY argue with anything Jeff has to say.
THolt - December 14, 2009
Buh?
Jeff’s pretty awesome (he has a cool name too) but he can’t make sample sizes larger than they actually were.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
So why would he come to an equally tough hitting park
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
He would go anywhere if they showed him the money
I’m not saying we’re going to get Holliday. I’m just tired of this notion that he can’t perform in the AL.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Fair enough.
But I doubt seattle on his wish list of teams.
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
Well the Yankees and Red Sox don't need him anymore
So where’s he gonna go? The Mets? Yeah that’s much better.
He’s going where he’ll get paid at this point.
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
28% better is a good thing.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
JLC - December 14, 2009
I use it as legal tender for all debts, public and private
lemonverbena - December 14, 2009 via mobile
Capitalize, use complete sentences, and try to tone down the assuredness with which you make points we have already proven otherwise.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I don't mean to sound like a dick but you need to brush up on player evaluation.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
I really don't understand that move, though.
Doesn’t sticking Cammy in left field of Fenway sap a ton of his value?
sammy - December 14, 2009
RHs never really lose much value playing in Boston
tait644 - December 14, 2009
I imagine he'll be playing center.
Teej - December 14, 2009
Ellsbury probably moves to left since he's average-to-below-average in center
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
Any further word on Lowell's possible surgery?
msb - December 14, 2009
Please try to keep these comment threads on topic
Thank you.
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
I just can't open up multiple tabs.
I get lost.
msb - December 14, 2009
The only upside to this...
Angelscan get lackey, lee, or halladay.
Theyll likely sign a broken down Bedard…screwed
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
*Could have...?
THolt - December 14, 2009
Cliff Lee in a Mariners uniform is a pretty big upside as far as I'm concerned.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
Ahem.
Seconded.
THolt - December 14, 2009
For 1 yr and he'll be demanding 80-100 million
I’m not foolish to think they’ll extend him and then sign felix too.Which means one and done for Lee.
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
Type A status!
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Then we get a nice draft pick out of him
That’s if he’s not traded mid-season.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
We don't know what's happening, stop worrying about it.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I can't tell what you're trying to say.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
Reply fail!
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
Cupcakes Blanton is in the deal, I hate that guy
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
He can eat innings.
…any coincidence that Silva’ culinary repertoire includes innings a la carte?
THolt - December 14, 2009
silva's*
THolt - December 14, 2009
We don't know what's happening, stop worrying about it.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I'm sorry, I can't find anything reliable;
Fuck Aumont, I really could care less… but Saunders? Triunfel, as Jeff said, likely isn’t going after missing a season with a broken leg.
THolt - December 14, 2009
We don't know what's happening, stop worrying about it.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Exactly.
The more talk that is going on about this, the shittier and shittier this thread is becoming.
Goose - December 14, 2009
Time to post a new thread on something!
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Point taken
THolt - December 14, 2009
I believe we've been infiltrated by dbacks2007.
I don’t think a new thread is going to help.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
Agreed
Edgar for Pres - December 14, 2009
Saunders' and Triunfel's are the only names that could sour this for me.
I’m not keen on giving up Ramirez either but I could live with it.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
Having Robles kind of helps
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
I have to admit
I would find it a bit hilarious if this deal blew up because the Phillies couldn’t agree to a contract extension with Halladay.
JLC - December 14, 2009
If we just signed Harden, this whole mess is avoided.
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
Have faith in the GMZ
THolt - December 14, 2009
Okay, you're now officially making no sense at all.
Lee >>>>>>> Harden.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
THANK YOU,
THolt - December 14, 2009
Take into consideration the other factors
Harden costs a bit less in 2010
Keep Aumont, Saunders, Triuful. Whoever is traded.
Harden is a big draw locally which boost ticket sales.
Harden will likely be a more realistic resign than Lee’s ridiculous demands
MagicMike23 - December 14, 2009
We don't know what's happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it. We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it. We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it. We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it. We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it. We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it. We don’t know what’s happening, stop worrying about it.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
*We don't know what's happening...
…stop posting on it.
THolt - December 14, 2009
Because with the way Harden's contract is structured, it is obvious he's not looking for a huge payday in 2011.
JLC - December 14, 2009
Fuck the payday...
Our management know what the fuck it’s doing.
THolt - December 14, 2009
Hey! Guess what!
You don’t know who has been traded yet. And Aumont, and several other minor leaguers are useless to our team, plus we get people back when he leaves as type A. Maybe you should hold off on your analysis until there is something to analyze.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Also, costing 1 million dollar more for a better pitcher is not a problem. Harden "costs a bit less" and he's a bit worse.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
You're an idiot
Please stop posting
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
The bad commenters are just coming out of the woodwork because of this.
Eyebrows - December 14, 2009
I'M WORKING ON IT
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
This is what you get for leaving us high and dry during the winter meetings.
/kidding
Goose - December 14, 2009
At least I got to avoid all the madness!
!
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
If I'm fucking up...
…please, tell me. I don’t post here, ever, but I certainly share the same philosophical views on statistical analysis that the majority of the people here do. This news broke the camel’s back; time to post.
THolt - December 14, 2009
It's not you or any one individual person or anything
I think it’s probably just time we stop talking about this. Time + not learning anything new = insanity
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
You're fine.
Just don’t encourage people that post incorrect views by responding with something that validates their opinion and you’ll be fine. Welcome to LL!
CapSea - December 14, 2009
But ERA is an essential metric!
THolt - December 14, 2009
Ha, and thanks.
THolt - December 14, 2009
Kisses!
Eyebrows - December 14, 2009
YOU NEED MORE MANPOWER
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Damn yahoo
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
Stark (grain of salt) on ESPN radio just now
Remember, this trade is still in progress, not set in stone yet. Drabek is likely included, so the Phils can keep D Brown, and get Aumont.
Why Seattle? Seattle in pursuit in another top rotation arm; can’t trade for Halliday, Lackey to Boston— so, Lee. Thinks they are so aggressive to show Felix how committed they are.
Why Lackey to Sox? Bay appears to be moving on, so they opted to beef up pitching instead, add Cammy, interested in Beltre.
Repeats the Angels looking to Lowe; cheaper than Lackey.
msb - December 14, 2009
OH GOD PLEASE
PLEASE let the Angel’s add Lowe. Although his BABIP could regress some.
THolt - December 14, 2009
Angels defense is bad.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
So it could
uh… progress… some? Yay!
THolt - December 14, 2009
Kurkjian now chimes in
Surprised that Philly made the run (not sure why, since they were an obvious spot for Halladay) and that Lee would go, until he looked at the finances. Lee wants to stay, but only at “fair market value”, so no way they could pay him Halladay money too. He too thinks it may be the best 1-2 punch in the AL + Figgins …. “the AL West has taken a dramatic shift in the last few days”.
msb - December 14, 2009
Goodness gracious...
M’s may be getting Drabek in this deal.
PLU Tim - December 14, 2009
Whaaaa? Where is this at?
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
All reports so far have Toronto as the recipient of the prospects.
Seattle & Philly get the Cys.
msb - December 14, 2009
I think Drabek would be going to Toronto.
He likely keeps Brown out of the deal.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I heard Felix is in the deal and that we're getting Blanton and Polanco instead.
This is definitely happening, and this is the worst day of my life.
Teej - December 14, 2009
I demand monetary compensation for my testicles.
THolt - December 14, 2009
Dude. Seriously?
Because uh… there’s a lot of crazy shitastic comments in this thread. For real, or you fucking with me?
Kermit. - December 14, 2009
NO ONE RESPOND TO THIS COMMENT
JLC - December 14, 2009
You just did.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I'm kind of spinning in an information vacuum here.
This is probably karma for the Tyler Perry shooting a remake of Blazing Saddles comment I made.
Kermit. - December 14, 2009
Sorry, that was me doing an impression of a crazy person freaking out and judging a deal that hasn't happened.
Teej - December 14, 2009
I'm sorry, but you typed it.
Now it has to go through. Those are the rules of MLB. It’s in the new collective bargaining agreement.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
I was 99% certain of that, but there's been a new development today with a ton of rumor.
You really deadpanned that one, caught me flat footed. Nice one.
Kermit. - December 14, 2009
Why is there a time limit on trades?
The AP also reported that the commissioner’s office granted a 72-hour window on Sunday for Toronto and Philadelphia to complete their trade.
Janic - December 14, 2009
It's based on Halladay getting an extension signed with Philly.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I believe MLB has to give teams permission to discuss a contract extension with a player they haven't acquired yet.
Teej - December 14, 2009
This shit is actually comin' up on MNF halftime.
Quit it with the 24-hour news cycles already.
THolt - December 14, 2009
This thread sort of went Kablooey.
ThundaPC - December 14, 2009
sort of?
SebastianPruiti - December 14, 2009
We've had worse
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Is is just me or does this make 0 sense?
“9:25pm: The Phillies would only recieve prospects from the M’s and no Philly prospects would be shipped to Toronto, sources tell Todd Zolecki of MLB.com (via Twitter).”
That would mean we’re the only team giving up any prospects whatsoever
gregrabble - December 14, 2009
I think right about now there is too much fluidity here
So much being said and thrown around… Who the hell knows
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
This whole thing stopped making sense hours ago.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
At this point I'm wondering if people are just posting random nonsense because MNF is boring today.
thewyrm - December 14, 2009
Poor Ditka picked the Cardinals.
His 13-0 season is coming to an end.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
Reading over it again...
It sounds like he is just saying no MARINERS prospects will be sent to Toronto.. Philly will be.
The twitter says
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Oh alright, MLBTR made it fucking confusing
gregrabble - December 14, 2009
Shocking.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Eh, they're getting a short reprieve from me
For inheriting our crazy guy from yesterday.
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
Yeah, I think it means whoever we're giving up is going to the Phillies, not the Blue Jays
And then the prospects from the Phillies go to the Blue Jays (which makes the Drabek inclusion make a hell of a lot more sense)
Jeff Nye - December 14, 2009
Sounds like a great deal for everyone.
- Toronto gets highly ranked prospects for Halladay.
- Philly gets the pitcher they want while taking a small drop in prospect value.
- Seattle gets a top pitcher for fair prospect value.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
The only one getting screwed..
is Halladay, which makes the deal possible.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
How is Halladay getting screwed?
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
He's planning on taking a 4 year contract extension worth considerably less than his value.
According to all/any relevant reports
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Yeah, but he's choosing to take the extension.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Exactly.
This entire deal doesn’t happen if he doesn’t want it to happen. Halladay has all the leverage he wants in this situation, making him the most in control.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I'm only trying to explain how he's "getting screwed"
not take a side on the point.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Didn't say you did.
But the “getting screwed” explanation was quickly debunked.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
Alright, alright...
He’s taking a contract that is well below his market value which would easily be north of $120 million. So if he’s getting half of what he could get, one might say he’s getting screwed.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
Halladay wouldn't ever get 4/120.
He’s getting ~80% of what he might be able to get on the open market.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
He's easily get 6/120
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
...which is significantly less than 4/120
Even if he’s a bagboy at Albertson’s for those other 2 years, which is relatively unlikely.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Oh wait.
I see what you did there. I am stupid.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Sure, 6/120.
But 6/120 is not half of 4/60. It’s 75% the value.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
The extension is 3/60.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
Reports I have read go through 2013.
Which is four years.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
It would start in 2011
gregrabble - December 14, 2009
He's signed for this year, 3/60 after.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
So then the contract is on par with 6/120.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
No, because the extra three years are guaranteed.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
Value is still the same.
The risk is transferred to Halladay. He could make more/less than $20 million/per with a new contract in three years.
Same value, different risk.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
"The risk is transferred to Halladay."
What?
Roy Halladay is 32. The risk of injury/lost of effectiveness over the course of a six year deal greatly outweigh the odds that he is going to be able to get 3/60 at the age of 35.
Would you rather the Mariners sign Nick Johnson for 1/8 or 2/16? There’s value in security for the player and risk in commitment to the team.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
"There’s value in security for the player and risk"
Exactly!
Halladay must feel he can make $20 million/yr with his next contract. Or maybe he thinks he can get 4/60 or 4/100 in three years. Or maybe he wants to re-evaluate his career after three years to decide if he wants to retire.
Security is the risk Halladay is taking. We don’t know his reasons. Only he and the Phillies can decide what that risk is worth. In terms of a 3/60 and 6/120 contract, they have the same value. The security and risk is transferred and Halladay must feel he is taking the right deal for him. Those extra years might be valuable to someone like you, but it might not be for him.
Is 6/120 a better deal than 3/60? Sure, but Halladay would have to play another season to get there. Who knows if he suffers a career-ending injury in 2010? What if the market doesn’t give him $20m/year next offseason? There’s risk involved, but at face value, 3/60 is the same as 6/120. There’s too many other variables to say otherwise. Again, it’s up to Halladay and Phillies to decide how those variables play into the two contract sizes.
But I digress.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
Let me make this more painful.
Carlos Silva $14 million for one year is not the same as Carlos Silva $54 million for four years.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
Dude, you guys are saying the same thing.
The only difference is that Wilder realizes that and you don’t.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
3/60 is not the same as 6/120.
One guarantees you twice as much money as the other.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
No one arguing that.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
I'm pretty sure that Wilder is arguing exactly that.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
That also assumes that
He’d be able to get another 3 year $60 million deal.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
He was under contract for 2010 already.
The extension is for 2011-2013.
Eyebrows - December 14, 2009
I'd guess 3/60 is a lot less than he'd have gotten on the market.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
It depends on what he's playing major league baseball for...
Could be that $20M a year and a possible World Series ring are enough, at least for now. And he could still earn more afterwards.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Halladay has also made a good amount of money in his career already, too.
His last contract was 3/40 and a 4/60 would make him a $100 million man, plus an option year which will likely be another $15-20 million. Halladay will be just fine.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I wonder at what point an owner is just going to say, "okay, Griffey, you get 5% of the team."
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
I know it's Baker citing Stark
But he has a rundown on his blog, says we’re giving up Aumont and Gilles to the Phillies. d’Arnaud, Taylor and one of Happ or Drabek going to Toronto.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/marinersblog/index.html
ungoreatstefan - December 14, 2009
Could you imagine just Aumont and Gillies? Holy shit.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
I am
It makes me a very happy man, I’ve got a lot of friends who are Phillies fans out here, and they’ve been texting me all day about how upset they are about losing Lee.
This will just make it sweeter if true.
ungoreatstefan - December 14, 2009
I like the way "Aumont and Gillies to the Phillies" sounds.
Also the way “Gillick acquires Gillies”, thought not as much. I think that right there is reason enough for the the trade to go through.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Anyone else gonna lose sleep over this nonsense?
russak - December 14, 2009
Well since this news broke while I was at work it's already happened in my case.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
This was worth wading through the slop for.
Sec 108 - December 15, 2009
No. I have absolute faith in Jack Zduriencik.
thewyrm - December 14, 2009
Also this.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
It's 3.43am here so I shouldn't have any trouble.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
As insane as this is for us
Can you imagine being Phillipe Aumont? First he’s going back to Canada to play for a suck team, then he’s going to Philly to play for a WS contender. His big, Canadian head must be about to explode.
short - December 14, 2009
"First he’s going back to Canada to play for a suck team, then he’s going to Philly to play for a WS contender. "
What are you talking about? Nothing’s changed from what we knew 6 hours ago. Every rumor since then has been people guessing which, again, you should not worry about since it is meaningless.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Well presumably if Aumont is involved all he's heard so far are the rumors
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Canadians have special super senses
Like back bacon sense. It’s like hearing only more powerful.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
If I were to venture a guess.
I would say that most likely the only people he hears this information about are people that are at least somewhat involved. He’s not reading MLBTR, Twitter and the comments on LL, which is where the vast majority of these rumors are starting. But I could be wrong.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I'm not sure if he even knows English all that well
I was under the impression that he only had a small grasp of it when he was drafted
JLC - December 14, 2009
I'm pretty sure most Quebecois are bi-lingual.
And that makes you a racist.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
I actually don't think they are.
They’re separatists.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Well not all/most of them but that's probably politics so STC
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
Yeah...
Not to get too political but even when it was at its heyday, the separatist movement only got like 45% of the vote and even that number is contested (IIRC there was a bunch of chicanery in that election). Stopping politics now!
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
I know me a Quebecois
She’s multilingual. Then again she teaches French. Also, she wears striped shirts and eats baguettes.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
There is also an assuredness that people are providing these comments
like “X is going to Philly” and “We’re getting X” that is completely untrue, and only if Aumont is reading these types of comments is he going to get that kind of impression.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Some pretty legitimate places I think have reported the Aumont --> Toronto angle
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
I've been following Jayson Stark
As he’s updated his article throughout the day. He had Aumont going to Toronto, now he’s saying Aumont will go to the Phillies with Drabek to the Jays. That’s where I’m getting this. I don’t know whether Stark is more or less reliable than other sources.
short - December 14, 2009
Drabek? Shit just got even more serious.
THolt - December 14, 2009
I'm pretty sure he doesn't even speak English so he's completely oblivious to the entire situation
SeattleFigginsFan - December 14, 2009
Am I the only one here offended by Aumont's name?
Whenever I see it I think of Altamont. And that makes me think of the Hell’s Angels killing that dude. And February made me shiver. With every paper I’d deliver.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Yes.
PLU Tim - December 14, 2009
Look at me! I am up on my high horse!
I do not get offended at names and am therefore better than Johnny Slick!
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Stop that.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
GOD
Eyebrows - December 14, 2009
Maybe.
There was some lurker who crowed about it when we drafted him because Quebecois are the worst of France and Canada put together, apparently.
JY - December 14, 2009
=D
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I'm currently watching the Christmas special.
It’s awesome so far.
Goose - December 14, 2009
I downloaded that a couple weeks ago.. EPIC!
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
It's good shit. I enjoyed it.
Teej - December 14, 2009
Shit
is that “always sunny?”
THolt - December 14, 2009
Yeah.
Teej - December 14, 2009
HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh my god I physically hurt from laughing so much!
Did you fuck her?
Did you fuck my mom?
Did you fuck my mom Santa?
DID YOU FUCK MY FUCKING MOM?
DID YOU FUCK MY MOM SANTA CLAUSE?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Amazing.
Goose - December 14, 2009
I don't have to listen to this shit!
Where’s my Countach?
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
I couldnt stop laughing for a good 5 minutes during that
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
The look on his face is what really sells it.
Goose - December 14, 2009
My browser hates you.
I, personally, find this adorable. Or not.
THolt - December 14, 2009
That show rocks.
It’s the epitome of the stupid comedy that is actually smart.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
KITTENS.
JY - December 14, 2009
I KNOW RIGHT?
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Looks like Lincecum is gonna have some stiff competition this year in the N.L.
russak - December 14, 2009
How much extra burnsauce is the NL giving AL players nowadays, anyway?
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
What about Tui?
M’s are likely unloading at least one of Triunfel, Aumont and Saunders. But they are probably looking at offloading Tui. Figgins/Lopez (Ackley)/Wilson are blocking out Tui’s positions and Toronto’s infield is lacking pieces.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
There's always the chance of another trade down the road
Maybe they can get something else for him. Why exhaust all your resources in one haul? That’s one of the biggest differences between Bavasi and JZ.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Sure but the only consistent name is Aumont.
And we’re selling at least 3 players here. Triunfel has a greater future in this org than Tui.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
Which is why other teams would want Triunfel and not Tui.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
I highly doubt
That Z will be willing to pull a Bavasi and give up 3 of his best prospects, even for Lee. There is going to be some sort of filler in there.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
Triunfel lost a whole year of development.
THolt - December 14, 2009
And he's still ten times the prospect Tui is.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
He has only one-fourth the grit though.
And grit is what wins ballgames, son. Not that so-called talent. You think Davey Eckstein’s in the league because of talent?
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
FoxSports.com is saying that the Mariners are pushing for the inclusion of Triunfel into the deal over Brandon Morrow.
I’m willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt, but at first glance I don’t like it.
katal - December 14, 2009
That strikes me as misguided.
But GMZ knows his shit, and I don’t know enough about Tri’s skillset to really form an opinion. Thoughts?
THolt - December 14, 2009
For my money, Triunfel will be a league average infielder before Brandon Morrow is as a starter.
Morrow has just been so mishandled by this organization, I don’t see him finding success until he’s with another team, if he ever finds sustained success at all.
katal - December 14, 2009
"Brandon Morrow Lies Here" ought be engraved on Bavasi's tombstone
THolt - December 14, 2009
In fairness, some of that mishandling was self-inflicted.
Depending on how much you blame Morrow for “Diabeetusgate”.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
True that.
katal - December 14, 2009
Valid point
THolt - December 14, 2009
Last I heard Triunfel is getting fat
I don’t know if he’s gonna turn out to be the prospect we had hoped. Its too early to really tell but there is a lot of risk and I’m not sure how big the reward will be anymore.
Edgar for Pres - December 14, 2009
It seems sad that after somehow keeping him in the Bedard disaster
…we lose him for another pitcher.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
But we're not making the trade
so randomly throwing out names that would be better for us doesn’t really help.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I thought the Putz/Greene/whoever else trade proved
that throwing out names that would be better for us actually can work.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
Tui's not much of a prospect. I doubt he has a ton of value to other teams.
Teej - December 14, 2009
Oakland and the Giants...
…based on the Bay Area’s infatuation with the Tuiasosopo family.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
The Raiders and the A's could not be more dissimilar teams.
redwolf75 - December 14, 2009
The 49ers are in there as well.
Manu, man. Don’t forget Manu.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Phillies just signed a 3rd baseman for 3 years at a hefty contract and have Chase Utley
Toronto has Encarnacion and Aaron Hill.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Not that I think Philly wants Tui
but I fail to see how Placido Polanco’s $6M per year keeps Tui out of the lineup if he can rake.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Because they just signed him so clearly they must value him and that would be a tremendous waste of money to sign someone for 18 million only to trade for a not-too-important prospect at league miniimum.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
That's the level of money you pay a guy like Matsui
who isn’t a super duper lock at DH for the Angels either for all three years. Also, Polanco could still be a super-sub and, say, play third 4 days a week and second every now and then.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Matsui signed for one year
CapSea - December 14, 2009
How has Tui proved he can rake?
Tui in AAA: .366/.460/.826
Mike Morse in AAA: .353/.460/.813
Granted, Tui’s not a defensive disaster like Morse is, but…
Tuglett in AAA: .372 /.457/.830
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
Makes sense
But the Jays fans were complaining about needing more infield prospects http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/
I definitely don’t seeing Philly wanting Tui, but I am betting at least one of our chips isn’t as valued as a Saunders, Aumont or Morrow.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
What fans want is irrelevant.
and so far all we have heard with any degree of certainty from reliable sources is Aumont, Gillis and possibly Morrow and/or Triunfel. There is no reason to believe the other names since they are irrelevant. We could talk about giving them all 112 of our minor leaguers but that won’t make it true.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I rely on their fans than you to know more about what their farm system needs
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
I don't think you're quite getting my point
but I’m not necessarily interested in continuing this conversation further since it won’t really go anywhere productive. So … Okay!
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Haha fair enough
Sorry, long day. Wish I could keep up with you.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
I try not to make sense often, so don't worry about it.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
You say that like having Encarnacion is a good thing.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
Because it is.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I didn't know below average 3Bs were commodities these days.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
The dude costs only like 4 mil and projects to be at minimum 1 or 2 wins with rebound potential in his bat.
I don’t really see what makes him a bad player for a team to have. His defense isn’t great but his bat is still pretty awesome.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
At this point, I'd rather go for surer things.
katal - December 14, 2009
eh?
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Encarnacion would be switching leagues and had a bad 2009.
Being that we have Cliff Lee for only one season, I want a third baseman with minimal risk.
katal - December 14, 2009
Me thinks you are not reading the comments that lead up to that comment.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
I did not read most of the thread. Although yeah, I forgot he was traded to Toronto.
That said, I stand by my point. The guy may rebound offensively, but his defense is atrocious.
katal - December 14, 2009
Now you're talking about the NBA.
Do you even know what a baseball is?
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
I also wasn't talking about throwing him into a trade
AND I was talking about why these teams would want Tui, when they have those players – Tui, of course, being equally not a sure thing. None of it had to do with trading him/switching leagues, or anything else that you mentioned.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Meh.
katal - December 14, 2009
I expect better from you, pimp shit.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
It's been a long day.
katal - December 14, 2009
In fact, me knows.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Encarnacion's career high in WAR is 2.0
And he’s established himself as well below average in the field. Then he capped it off last year by not being able to hit anymore.
coreyjro - December 14, 2009
I see what you're saying
but I disagree with you. And "not being able to hit anymore’ was only in the first couple of months in the season. After that he was considerably better. And again, he really doesn’t cost much and they’ve already signed him to the 4 mil contract, and he’ll very likely be worth at least his value, making it a fine deal with the potential to turn out postitively in their favor. No reason they’d want to replace Encarnacion with an equally likely WAR guy in Tui.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
My favorite part is how this completely overshadowed the Lackey at Matsui signings.
JLC - December 14, 2009
Latest......
“10:12pm: Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun (via Twitter) has Toronto getting Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, and Travis D’Arnaud; Philly getting Roy Halladay and Philippe Aumont; and the Mariners getting Cliff Lee, plus another piece (or, pieces).”
gregrabble - December 14, 2009
That doesn't make any sense
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
So....
We’ve gone from a GM who was especially susceptible to mind control devices to one that seems own one himself?
JY - December 14, 2009
These are the prospects you are looking for.
Slurvey - December 14, 2009
Well..
neither does masturbation to a photo of Jack Z. Which, may happen if this is true.
PLU Tim - December 14, 2009
Just read that...
He has officially lost credibility in my eyes…
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
The next rumor will involve Lee to the M's, the Jays tossing in a prospect
and the Mariners not actually giving anything up.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
They're not sure why Jack Zduriencik is a part of this, but, hey, he seems like a cool guy and everyone likes him.
JLC - December 14, 2009
You forgot the part where somebody else pays Lee's salary, GMZ seems to like that part.
I like that part too.
Kermit. - December 14, 2009
And pieces?1?!
russak - December 14, 2009
Chase Utley counts as a "piece", right?
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
A hot piece, yes.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Throw in Raul with 17 u's and it's a done deal.
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
What the fuck is happening?
redwolf75 - December 14, 2009
We get Lee AND other pieces for Aumont only?!
Bob Elliott is smoking crack.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
Let us hope that he is not.
redwolf75 - December 14, 2009
Or that he is...
and has been sharing it with Amaro all day.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
Let's hope he's not bogarting it, and passes the pipe to Pat Gillick.
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
Pretty close to what Baker reported except obviously the Phillies are getting the "other" piece, not the Mariners
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
I WANT THE OTHER PIECES
Poochie - December 14, 2009
He must have the pieces backward in that, we are giving them not getting
ARock - December 14, 2009
We're getting Cliff Lee and more for Philippe Aumont?!
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
This was supposed to be in reply to gregrabble.
Eyeball Kid - December 14, 2009
We got it
And I share your sentiment. Even Z couldnt’ get away with this one.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
I'm going to start knocking over pharmacies if that happens.
Because the apocalypse is surely imminent.
THolt - December 14, 2009
I still maintain that Bob Elliott is high
JLC - December 14, 2009
Maybe he knocked one over already.
THolt - December 14, 2009
That Canadian beer is really strong.
msb - December 14, 2009
I love when reporters report...
…well, nothing. “Piece?” A gun? A bong? Jesus leave it alone. Fuck the internet. That said, may I hypocritically ask if SB has an add-on I can use to monitor threads off-page?
THolt - December 14, 2009
Maybe Z will trade Triunfel to himself.
You know, just to make the deal more even.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
How about ballparks? They can be traded, right?
THolt - December 14, 2009
My head is going to explode
Slurvey - December 14, 2009
Reporters no longer report.
They sell.
THolt - December 14, 2009
With some distinct exceptions
THolt - December 14, 2009
I AM FLIPPING OUT!
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Read about 60% of the thread before hitting Shift-A.
What the Hell. Learn how form a sentence, New Posters.
katal - December 14, 2009
I'm going to assume that was directed elsewhere.
THolt - December 14, 2009
No. It was directed at this thread.
katal - December 14, 2009
Or rather this isn't a freaking IM conversation.
We use proper sentence structure around here.
Slurvey - December 14, 2009
Wholeheartedly supported.
See? Verb + (implied) subject: Sentence! Yay!
THolt - December 14, 2009
And Subject lines dammit!
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
"Learn how form a sentence, New Posters."
Yeah, like that Katal character.
;)
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
I'm clearly using New Posters as their name.
Like “Americans” or “Royals.”
katal - December 14, 2009
I am the Jason Kendall of posting!
Feel my roaring nature of roars!
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
You're spitting chaw as you type?
msb - December 14, 2009
That's not chaw, son.
That’s grit.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
"Learn how form a sentence"
Don’t worry, I do it too.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
God dammit.
I almost wish you hadn’t pointed that out.
katal - December 14, 2009
I must have read that a dozen times before I figured out what was wrong with it.
Good eye, Wilder.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
This just in: Mariners getting Lee and Halladay
Phillies and Jays each get a complimentary box of Fiddle Faddle
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
Fiddle Faddle is too much!
Will they take Funyuns instead?
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Funyuns BABIP is due for some serious regression in '10
THolt - December 14, 2009
Funyuns had a CAR (Crunch Above Replacement) of 3.0
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Only if you set the replacement level at day-old cheetos.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
It is nigh impossible to assign a replacement crunch level.
But if it were possible, they would, in fact, be Cheetos Puffs.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
This made me laugh more than I thought it should.
russak - December 14, 2009
Fiddle Faddle is composed of pieces, right?
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
Yes
It’s a shame we had to lose so many sweet pieces to make this deal happen but such is the price of business.
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
Okay, I'm no longer deriving satisfaction out of this
You can stop the rumors now
JLC - December 14, 2009
So when is Texas going to offer Neftali Feliz and Justin Smoak + for Cliff Lee just to piss us off?
Slurvey - December 14, 2009
I'm not sure I'd be pissed if that happened.
I might actually be elated.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
That would be fine just fine
Would suck for 2010, but not having Feliz around to own us for many years would be swell.
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
I would LOVE that.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
Looks like I picked the wrong week
to stop sniffing glue.
Bodhizefa - December 14, 2009
You could always try again next week.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
Not a RickRoll, I swear
Looks like I picked the wrong week…
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
I have to get up to pee
But I can’t stop looking at the rumors!!! Someone help!
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Catheter up, dude.
JLC - December 14, 2009
Bucket up, dude.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
Can I help?
Depends….
Grant Brisbee - December 14, 2009
Go to bed.
We probably wont get the full details until tomorrow or later anyway.
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 14, 2009
But then I'll just pee in the bed!
You are no help whatsoever!
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
This is what the empty beer bottles are for.
redwolf75 - December 14, 2009
If all of our prospects are going to Philly, and Toronto isn't giving us anything
This is the worst 3-way deal ever.
Fuckmikereilly - December 14, 2009
Depends on the prospects.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
Except for the bit about how we're getting Cliff Lee
for Philip Aumont and a petrified starfish. I think a sand dollar may be involved as well.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
ESPN keeps calling it companion trades
So not technically a three-way deal, assuming they’re right.
drblacknwhite - December 14, 2009
That sounds communist.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Same thing on the AP story, actually
Weird
calim - December 14, 2009
Yeah 3-way sounds kinda gay
Poochie - December 14, 2009
I mean what if your dicks touch?
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Yeah, like "you take care of me after I'm done with this guy over there"
is the epitome of straightness.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
This is more like the Phillies have tons of stamina
so they fuck the Blue Jays and make them cum, and then turn around and fuck the Mariners until they both cum.
I Lick Squirrels - December 14, 2009
Well then
calim - December 14, 2009
Gross
royalcurve - December 14, 2009
If RC is grossed out, it's truly gross.
Teej - December 14, 2009
You aren't just whistling Dixie.
royalcurve - December 14, 2009
Gross.
Teej - December 14, 2009
No thank you
Poochie - December 14, 2009
How is this not getting rec'd???
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
Mainly because it's unnecessarily gross without being the least bit funny
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
The beers in me disagree.
So I’ll leave it at that.
Terminator X - December 14, 2009
Aumont for Cliff Lee + pieces...
This reminds me of a sketch in a cartoon where one of the characters starts fast talking and offering things and confuses the hell out of the other guys to the point where one character winds up with everything.
That Hokey Wolf commercial on Boomerang, for example.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
Found exactly what I'm talking about.
YouTube
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
You see, the pies represent Cliff Lee and the can of beans represent the prospects,
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
What does the overwhelming sense of trepidation I am feeling right now about clicking that link represent?
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
It's just an old Hokey Wolf cartoon.
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
So if we trade Saunders, who plays left?
Bill Hall?
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
Geoff Baker!
Actually, that’s true. He has the power the Mariners need and the helmet-head they deserve.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
There was talk of a Baker/Stone platoon, but quickly diminished when they realized that they were both left handed.
Janic - December 14, 2009
That's too bad. Larry Stone is a +14.5 giggles saved per 100 tickles.
He could really do well to spell Griffey when he’s having an off-tickle night, or if he needs to spend a day tickling his family.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
New rule to all the baseball insiders, reporters, columnists, or whatever.
Don’t talk about a fucking trade unless it is either done or within hours of being fucking done.
Having to wait this long and then having to put up with the endless stream of rumors should be a Geneva convention violation somehow.
Goose - December 14, 2009
Uhhhh so... I think you can forget about Holliday.
If my math is correct, this is an 8y/128m offer.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Holy fucking hell where are they going to get the money to re-sign Pujols.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
Well he was getting 16m per regardless and that would be lees than the money they just jettisoned when they cut Glaus and Ankiel loose
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Or maybe DeWitt has decided to stop being a lying say of shit and open his fucking wallet
Poochie - December 14, 2009
On the other hand 8*16 is fucking crazy
Poochie - December 14, 2009
I though Mo was better than this
Poochie - December 14, 2009
I blame Alfonso Soriano and the Cubs for this
stupid fuckers
Poochie - December 14, 2009
And how much are they going to have to give him after laying out this much for a player who, while very good, is not on Pujols' level.
Then again, maybe they think it will make Pujols happy and more likely to re-sign.
Teej - December 14, 2009
Well, the only counter then is a deal like the one Jim Kelly got in the USFL
30 years, $200 million. Sign him for 6 and put the other $100 mil into a Dolgoff Plan.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Is that like a Ponzi scheme?
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
Close.
Small payouts over 30 years mean you can invest a small portion of what you’re actually giving out. Of course, the flip side is that the player could just do that himself. They did this all the time in the ABA. I think some guys are still receiving their payments from their teams.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
So what I'm hearing is that they're giving up on Pujols
JLC - December 14, 2009
Stop... just... stop.
No.
THolt - December 14, 2009
No I just heard that the Cardinals have entered the deal
It’s Pujols + Lee to the Mariners
JLC - December 14, 2009
For Brandon Morrow and a Grand Slam at Denny's during the next winter meetings?
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
Zduriencik also had to give the Cardinals his soul
JLC - December 14, 2009
Which he'll get back in a 3 way deal involving Jose Lopez
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
And who wouldn't want a three way with Jose?
THolt - December 14, 2009
It's funny because it implies sex.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
No, it's not funny because it implies sex.
THolt - December 14, 2009
It makes it funny and then sad, and then funny again when you think about it later.
And then sad again.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Psylocibin is fun!
THolt - December 14, 2009
Aw shucks looks like he's head back to St. Louis
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Link?
THolt - December 14, 2009
Think he is gonna turn down an 8 year offer?
Odds are against it
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
www.3postsup.com.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
I was waitin for you to show up on this subthread!
Only a matter of time
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Oh well.
But now I’m gonna be pissed if Saunders is going away.
Goose - December 14, 2009
It could be more than 8 years!
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Huh. That's excessive, but ok
Time to find a power bat we can trade Morrow for.
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
If only Adrian Gonzalez wasn't so damn important to San Diego.
Wilder. - December 14, 2009
If he averages 4 wins a season it's market value!
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Through his age 38 season?
I could see it happening but he was asking for 6/100
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
I was being sarcastic
Poochie - December 14, 2009
I have a feeling the Cardinal felt their credibility was on the line and could afford to lose Holliday whilst haggling over a few million dollars
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Gonzalez and Luke Scott!
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
I hate myself.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
We trade Saunders for Gonzalez, and Rob Johnson for Scott
get’r’done
Poochie - December 14, 2009
We've been linked to Luke Scott
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
That I would most certainly love.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Kinda
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
Not that we'd have to give up Morrow for him
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
Maybe Ryan Ludwick is available
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Jayson Stark
Says we only give up Aumont and Gillies for Lee.
I like this one best.
tait644 - December 14, 2009
I like Bob Elliot best..
We give up Aumont and get Lee and then some. How high is he?
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Correction
Of the rumors grounded in reality, I like Stark’s best.
tait644 - December 14, 2009
I cannot believe we are only giving up Aumont and Gilles.. That is just... wow.
There HAS to be a bigger piece out there.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Or about 6 million dollars
arbeck77 - December 14, 2009
What, no Raul and Utley?
This deal sucks. We’re giving up too much.
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
This is all way to confusing
I bet it is no where near as good as best case ans no where near as bad as worst case when this whole clusterfuck gets fixed.
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Define "clusterfuck..."
THolt - December 14, 2009
HUmmm
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
please be carlos silva please be carlos silva please be carlos silva please be carlos silva
craig3410 - December 14, 2009
Everything depends on who the hell that third guy is
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
Anyone but Saunders anyone but Saunders anyone but Saunders
BrianL - December 14, 2009
If it was Saunders you'd think he'd be the headliner of the deal
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
My thinking as well.
Teej - December 14, 2009
I bet it's Griffey.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
He just signed as a free agent, he can't be traded before June
Poochie - December 14, 2009
His tickles, however, are Mariner property and therefore tradeable.
Much like Mike Sweeney’s hugs or Kenji Johjima’s collection of tentacle nurse rape pornography.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Please stop
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Seconded.
katal - December 14, 2009
Please be Tui... Please be Tui... Please be Tui...
Poochie - December 14, 2009
So basically....
3rd Player – Saunders = Bad
3rd Player – Triunfel or Morrow =Wash
3rd Player – Anyone else = Good?
Goose - December 14, 2009
I'd replace Triunfel with Moore but sure
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
Giving up Triunfel is a bad thing.
katal - December 14, 2009
I would put Triunfel in the bad category
Simply because I don’t like selling that low on a prospect.
JLC - December 14, 2009
Think you guys are overrating Triunfel to some extent
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
I don't think it's that he's overrated so much as he can't have that much value to GMs right now
That being said, if somebody’s going crazy over him at this point, why not? Part of the reason he’s undervalued is that next year really is a huge question mark.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
Guy was one of the top-twenty prospects in the game before his injury, and even after missing a year, he'll still be young for his league.
What’s to overrate about him?
katal - December 14, 2009
The fact that he missed an entire year to injury, perhaps?
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
The lost development time this season was enormous.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
He was not a top twenty prospect and never has been
He’s always been a massive risk, massive reward guy, and the risk is hitting now.
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
I would like to keep him around to see if he reaches that potential, but if he's in the deal I won't freak out.
I think the questions about whether or not he’ll hit for any power are legit, he’s lost a lot of development time and he’s already destined for a corner. His ceiling isn’t what it was two years ago, and while he’s still very young, I just don’t see him becoming a star.
It’s admittedly just a gut feeling, as I’m not anywhere close to qualified to judge a 19-year-old player I’ve never seen outside the AFL, but I’m not super-high on him.
Teej - December 14, 2009
that would be about right
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
This seems like the most likely deal
No way we only ship two players out.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
The more I see "mystery 3rd player", the more happy I get.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
I can't imagine the third player being worth more than Aumont or Gillies. Someone inbetween or less?
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 14, 2009
Lots of JC Ramirez being in it from before - this I would be totally ok with.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Agreed
I feel like if it was a guy like Saunders, they would be mentioning his name. They seem to just be saying third guy because the mainstream sportscenter watching folks won’t know who he is.
SebastianPruiti - December 14, 2009
So really this is just two two-team trades, and not a real threeway.
I mean, they’re in the same bed, but two of the parties aren’t touching. They’re just sharing the Phillies.
Eyebrows - December 14, 2009
It was being phrased as "companion trades", yea..
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
You could make it a three way if we send Aumount to Toronto for Halladay
and then trade Halladay for Lee
Poochie - December 14, 2009
So it is more like they are bundling.
msb - December 14, 2009
My guess if Truinfel
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Exactly what Stark is saying
I don’t trust Stark or Rosenthal for their analysis, but if those two are in agreement on a breaking story, it’s probably pretty good info.
Let’s just hope the third player not Tri, Saunders, or Morrow and is the previously mentioned Ramirez.
edddgar - December 14, 2009
Also, if the final player is going to Philadelphia
Rule out Saunders, with Ibanez/Victorino/Werth I doubt he’s of any interest to Philly. For Triunfel, they would have to be sold on him being at third long term. Morrow doesn’t have a spot in the rotation in Philly so I doubt he’s an option either.
edddgar - December 14, 2009
So, Ramirez it is
Brian Floyd - December 14, 2009
the dreaded ?
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Well that would be us getting the ?
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
How is that dreaded?
If that’s true we get Lee and a bonus prize.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Maybe we have to take Raul back as punishment
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Raul at DH would be nifty enough.
Aaron Campeau - December 14, 2009
But no .gif opportunities =(
JLC - December 14, 2009
We'll always have misguided lineup decisions during interleague.
If Ichiro needed a day off we could have Griffey and Raul in the corners!
BrianL - December 14, 2009
This reminds me of being a Mariners fan in like 1993
You knew there were great things on the horizon but at the same time you knew there would be no funny travesties of the game like Lenny Randle blowing the ball foul or Nose Glasses Night.
Johnny Slick - December 14, 2009
False.
Vidro had a few good gifs, just not on defense.
Eyebrows - December 14, 2009
Foul ball to the kisser
what else?
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Cubs game
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
woot
Poochie - December 14, 2009
That is a damn fine gif
Poochie - December 14, 2009
More than possibly than the DiceK-debut game, that Cubs game was the zennith of the 2007 season.
katal - December 14, 2009
Oh right.
Classic.
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Or we could flip him for something mildly intriguing!
BrianL - December 14, 2009
Brent Lillibridge?
eponymous_coward - December 14, 2009
For Aumont
Yeah.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
because ? could mean 1 guy or 3
Don’t like that. That ends up being a bad thing in the long run
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
The more we get for this, the better.
CapSea - December 14, 2009
Ends up being a bad thing that we get Lee and 1 guy or 3 for Aumont?
Please elaborate.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Because it is obvious that something is not right
if the Tor Sun writer is still dropping stuff like this then there is no way to know if any of these particulars are correct.
If the M’s are getting a return on Aumont for Lee (which is baffling in itself) what is it? Is it 2 huge contracts like Moyers and Lidge?
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
I think most of us saw that and immediately knew the particulars were incorrect.
That man is clearly off his rocker.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
And if Moyer or Lidge were in the deal, we would hear about them taking physicals
Or at least hear their names. They aren’t minor leaguers.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
or even worse
VERNON WELLS
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Ok yes that would suck
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
there is a reason why I worry when I see that dreaded ?
To many bad things that could happen, especially when teams start including $$ in deals and the M’s have some financial flexibility
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Yeah, that would be bad.. But again, we would have heard that name by now.
That is a fairly large piece to slip through the cracks.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
we have already accepted that it is possible that the guy is a nut
maybe he is just senile and forgot… That is what the ? is for
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
Yeah, I like the senile thought.
Most likely.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
I think that's our $6m
arbeck77 - December 14, 2009
No reason for us to give up cash in that deal
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
If we give up Gillies + Aumont or less
Wouldn’t we have to throw in something else?
arbeck77 - December 14, 2009
Toronto would because they're unloading payroll, not us
Brian Floyd - December 14, 2009
Gilles isn't in that deal
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Sure, but Toronto are the ones dumping payroll
They need to be the ones contributing money. If we have something else to give it will be in prospect form
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
My try:
TOR:
Drabek
Taylor
D’Arnaud
Tui
PHI:
Halladay
Aumont
Gilles
SEA:
Lee
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
This is painfully long to read.. Why can't I delete this.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
Tui, Aumont and Gilles? Quesitonable.
Bobby Valentine saying more prospects involved. “Mortgaging.” GMZ does no such thing.
THolt - December 14, 2009
I think he just read 3 prospects and assumed.
SebastianPruiti - December 14, 2009
Seattle has to give something to Toronto for this deal to make sense.
Tui or Triu are the best bets, but will we get rid of Triu and Aumont?
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
It's not a three-way deal anymore..
It is now being reported as a companion trade. Everyone has now said that no prospects are going to Toronto from Seattle. Toronto is getting a boatload of talent from Philly.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
Yes I realize
So you are claiming that Philly doesn’t want a rotation of Halladay, Lee, Hamels next year and would prefer to pull in cheap talent using Lee while they can? Why didn’t Philly just make this move last summer then? Doesn’t add up.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
They can't afford both Halladay and Lee
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
If only they hadn't signed Raul
Poochie - December 14, 2009
Even for one season? I keep hearing Lee is cheap at ~$9mil
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
I'm not real familiar with their budget situation but that's what everyone keeps saying
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Paraphrasing a guy from another board, here's what I'm trying to say:
Doing a two-step and trading Lee to Seattle and (seperately trading) prospects to Toronto essentially means Philly ended up trading: Carrasco, Knapp, Donald, Marson, Happ or Drabek, Taylor and D’Arnaud
for: 2 months of Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay and 1 prospect (Aumonte or Gilles).
That’s terrible management if it’s true. More likely Toronto is getting a piece from Seattle and Philly is losing one less prospect.
magistermilitum - December 14, 2009
well that and the added revenue for almost winning the WS
laxtonto - December 14, 2009
What they did during the summer doesn't really matter anymore
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
Yeah like Jeff said, what they did last year helped get them to another World Series
And that was the whole point of that deal. This is a different situation.
OlSalty - December 14, 2009
"So you are claiming that Philly doesn’t want a rotation of Halladay, Lee, Hamels next year"
Graham MacAree - December 14, 2009
Phillies cannot run up a 160m payroll.
seattlesundevil - December 14, 2009
There's a new thread up for all this talk
Jeff Sullivan - December 14, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.