Lookout Landing

.

Cheese!!!!!!

brayden04 - March 13, 2009 reply

Another difference between him and Street

is Street’s got way better stuff and mixes his pitches. Cordero goes to his 89mph FB 3/4 of the time and uses his slider pretty much the rest of the time. Street throws harder (FB velo’s about the same but Street’s slider is +5mph) and he’s at about 50% FB with slider/change the rest of the way.

I’ll be shocked if this guy ends up closing games ever again. Which isn’t to say I don’t like the pick up, just there was some unwarranted jubilation in the FP thread last night that I was a bit surprised at.

Forgot to mention this

but the difference in stuff between the two is obvious in the StrSw%. Huston gets way more, and Cordero, even in his best season to date was solidly in the company of relief aces Ron Villone and Julio Mateo (didn’t crack the top 100 relievers that year).

Graham was right to make the comparison between the two – they’re very similar in terms of playing history, age and pitches – but lets be clear that at his healthiest and best Cordero was no rockstar.

I don't think anyone is calling him Street

It’s just that he cost us nothing and there’s a chance he could be a decent bullpen arm.

No it’s not like we just picked up our guaranteed closer for nothing but there’s no risk involved in seeing how he comes back from surgery with a minor league deal.

Dude

The options should be:
1) Yes
2) Yesser
3) I want to put my dick in it

That seems like some serious overreaction to signing a guy whose upside is an okay reliever. I mean, it’s a good signing, but for me this is no different from the Sweeney deal.

That was a joke

I was just saying that there’s no reason anyone should ~~not~~ like the signing. Personally I wouldn’t have chosen the “want to put my dick in it” option, I think a yes would have sufficed, but it’s a poll so you have to make up silly options like that on LL when there is only varying amounts of how much you could possibly like the signing.

And the context of that comment was we were commenting on the one or two people

Who selected “No”, they didn’t like the signing in the poll.

I wouldn't put too much thought into an overreaction to a silly comment.

kevin_ess - March 13, 2009 reply

I know I don't mean to single you out

but there was a lot of ‘holy shit I love jack Z this is an awesome move our pen is going to rock’ in that thread which I think is appropriate given the off season in general but an overreaction to this move in particular.

Honeymoon phase is still going strong

Any non-idiotic move that GMZ makes will result in “praise the lord” and “hallelujah”

johnbai - March 13, 2009 reply

His upside is relief ace, not okay reliever.

And to address your comments below, I can see why it’s amusing that people flip over small deals like this, but a lot of what makes an organization strong and deep. One deal like this isn’t a huge deal, but a ton of them can lead to having a totally lights out bullpen, say, or finding the next Carlos Pena. It’s exactly what we didn’t get during the Bavasi years, and that’s why people are excited. It’s not the individual move necessarily, it’s the process.

How can you call him a relief ace?

1/3 of his strike outs were on strikes looking. Take that away and he’s a 5K/9, 2.5-3BB/9 guy with flyball tendencies. Useful, but hardly an ace. But I’ve commented too much on this considering how small a deal it is. people are happy, and that’s good. If he helps the team, which I think is not terribly likely, then great and if he doesn’t then fuck it.

I don't think you could call him a relief ace, but I think that his upside is relief ace.

Is or was?

Still is.

Upside is by very definition unlikely to occur.

I'm glad I'mnot the only one

I was actually pretty excited when I read the headlines because I didn’t know very much about him. But in looking at his stats from his halcyon days… he was a competent middle reliever who accumulated saves and developed some name recognition. Now he’s a middle reliever recovering from a nasty injury. I think his upside is Jimmy Gobble.

He was a two win player in 2005 and had a well above average tRA 04-06.

Come on man, don’t sell him short.

I've been watching Cordero since 2005, and I can tell you that his "stuff" was shot long before his labrum was shredded

The Chief was hugely flyball prone even in his prime, which is a major problem for a closer. “But wait,” you might say, “isn’t Safeco the sort of large stadium ideally suited to pitchers with such tendencies?” Well yes, except for the fact that Chad’s flyball proclivities were causing him problems in RFK Grand Canyon National Park Stadium, which was far more cavernous than any other park in either league, with the exception perhaps of Petco. His fastball has been declining in speed since 2006, which may be related to increasing labrum problems.

I’d like to think that Cordero can come back to be an effective closer or set-up man, but based on what I saw over the last few years, I have my doubts. The National League figured him out after a year or two, and I imagine that the grading curve — in a better league, and with diminished stuff — will be even harder this time around. I hope he makes it, though. The ORIGINAL Brim Reaper — GS52 stole his schtick from Chad all the way.

esoteric - March 13, 2009 reply

You're being too hard on him

The National League figured him out after a year or two

He was never lights out, but an effective pitcher until the day he got hurt.

This is what I was trying to point out

I’m fine with the signing but it’s hardly something to be happy about per se. He wasn’t anything very special before his injuries and if he weren’t pitching the ninth nobody outside the DC market would know his name. If you see the deal as an indication of how the new FO does business, then of course it’s cheer-worthy but it’s hardly the first such instance (Sweeney, Walker, Aardsma and so on and so forth) so it’s not really news.

Why not?

It is potentially something to be happy about and that’s what counts. You’re right in that it could and quite likely will be a relatively meaningless signing, but the difference here is that the maximum upside of a recovered Cordero is probably a better option at closer than any of our current candidates because he used to be able to get both lefties and righties out in decent fashion. Not many of the people in camp now have ever shown the capacity to do that, and that’s what you need from a closer. Will he ever reach that upside? Doubtful, but possible, and he’s completely free, so what’s not to be happy about?

For me 'happy' is an extreme emotion that I don't easily throw around.

But whatever. I guess I’m not as confident in the abilities of a healthy Cordero than most.

To be honest I'm still stuck in the '08 Mariners mindset

So I realize that I am way overly enthusiastic about things that to a competently run organization would be relatively routine moves. But after experiencing decision after decision that was just a mind-boggling step backwards over and over and over again I tend to treat any positive step as fucking awesome.

Still we as a fanbase have to learn to be happy about and appreciate these kinds of things too, because it’s a thousand small victories like this one that eventually lead to a ballclub that wins the world series.

Chad Cordero was pretty good before the injuries

If you stop being happy about adding potentially good pieces to your team for free, then I don’t know how you survived the past half decade.

The Sweeney signing was Miguel Cairo/Fernando Vina with a smart front office.

Aardsma, Walker and Cordero are way more important because at least one of them (and possibly two or all three) can be impact players next year. I understand that you think people are too bullish on these moves and to a certain extent you’re probably right, but to call them “not really news” is kind of crazy.

The not really news bit

refers to the fact that the FO is willing to sign players recovering from injury to minor league contracts.

Look, if they had signed Julio Mateo instead of Cordero what would people’s reaction be? Cordero is a lot younger and doesn’t have the shitbag thing like Mateo does, but otherwise they’re pretty close to being the same pitcher.

I would say Cordero is a way better pitcher than Mateo.

Cordero has a career FIP of 4.02, which gets even better when you discount his 2006 season where he basically fell off the earth. Mateo has a career FIP of 4.53, not to mention being a jerk and 5 years older.

How are you interpreting the process here?

I guess… Bavasi’s one strength was in building a bullpen on the cheap. Still not quite sure if that was player development or scouting, but there you go – finding people from Sherrill to Sean Green to developing Putz into death on a stick.

The shift here seems to be in getting guys who were hyped prospects and/or have had the all-important ‘closer’ label. A cursory glance at the pattern could be sort of worrying. I’ll admit that Aardsma/Cordero/Walker came cheap, and that there’s some upside here. But I do wonder what people would say if Bavasi had made the same moves… “oh, he just looks at labels.” “All he cares about his ‘veteran grit’ and people who ‘know their roles.’” On paper, without hindsight, is this move (or the Aardsma trade) better or worse than acquiring John Parrish?
It just seems now that people automatically love any move that Z makes, because we instantly see it in the best possible light. Hell, I do it too.

I’m with BR that the odds of Cordero ever being better than the 2008 version of Eddie Guardado are slim. But it’s worth a try, given the cost.

Parrish was acquired for the sole purpose of filling high leverage innings.

The part of the process that excites me is the fact that the Front Office seems acutely aware of the fact that pedestrian relief pitchers sometimes inexplicably turn into total studs seemingly overnight. If you hoard as many high-upside relief pitchers as possible, there’s a very good chance you’re going to hit on at least one of them.

And I’ve said myself many times that Bavasi’s ability to find useful relievers under random stones was quite impressive. If anything he should get more credit for it. But that doesn’t mean I can’t be excited that the new FO seems to have an idea of where good relievers come from and how to put together a ton of high-upside bullpen depth without spending money or losing anything of value.

When the Mariners brought in Zduriencik, I basically hit my brain’s reset button. A lot of people don’t seem to care about the new front office’s approach to bullpen construction because that particular thing was one of the few things Bavasi was any good at. But to me, anything Bavasi did is irrelevant in my assessment of Zduriencik. Everything Zduriencik is good at is cause for celebration regardless of how good Bavasi was at it.

So would you be excited if this wasn't Cordero, but rather Joe Schlabotnik from the St. Paul Saints?

Again, I’m not trying to say you shouldn’t like the Cordero signing, I just want to avoid a situation in which literally everything Zduriencik does is most perfect awesome.

You can be excited, and I think it’s a neat little pick-up; at worst, I’ll watch him in Tacoma. I do care about the new FO’s approach to bullpen construction, but I’m not yet certain it’s better. I hope it is, and since Z’s involved, it might be. But I don’t want us to go down the route of targeting ‘big name’ relievers, even if they’re cheap. I want us to get cheap relievers because they’re good. Slightly different, or perhaps no different at all. We shall see.

I don't understand what you're trying to say

You think the Mariners are going to sign players solely on name power?
Or you think we’re incapable of being objective about Zduriencik?

I don’t get it.

I think he's saying that we'd respond differently if Bavasi and Zduriencik made the exact same move

Which is probably true.

As much as track record seems to be dismissed with players, an executive's track record definitely effects one's opinion of them more.

At least, that’s what I’ve noticed.

Sure

The reaction would have been ‘Hey Bavasi is still good at building a bullpen for cheap’ rather than ‘Zduriencik appears to be good at everything hurray’

Somehow I don't think that would have been the overall consensus reaction

Disagree

Look at the poll in the diary

116 yes, 3 no. I highly doubt that Bavasi signing Cordero would’ve led to the same response.

If we had signed Cordero to the same contract a year ago

I don’t see how why we would have been critical of it.

More than 3 people would've found a way

Some people are irrational

But pointing out that they’re irrational doesn’t actually help because they are irrational, and I think most people commenting here are being pretty reasonable about how they see the deal

This is almnost certainly true.

My reaction was something like

BILL BAVASI IS A FUCKING MORON JOHN PARRISH MORE LIKE FAG FAGGISH ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

And...

You’d probably respond differently if I called you a flaming gay then you would if a user with one comment did.

Context is important.

We’d probably respond, “Well at least Bavasi won’t ruin the bullpen, this is a good move.”

I agree with you

It’s just something to think about in an effort to keep people from getting irrational.

Considering how heavily the Griffey was panned

and the disagreements it cause I don’t think we’re in danger of that.

And let me also say, I don’t think the pen is going to be awesome, but I think they’re doing a good job under the circumstances.

*signing

I'm going to start calling him The Griffey.

pdb - March 13, 2009 reply

Like he needs his ego stroked

I used to call Bonds "The Bonds"

from 2002-2004

After a bout of dyslexia,

Whenever he screw up, I’m calling him Friggey.

This gets my 100% support. Nice.

Shawk - March 13, 2009 reply

I think the vast majority of us are smart and objective enough to realize that Zduriencik will do things we don't like.

He hasn’t really done that yet (aside from Fontaine being fired and Griffey, both of which were criticized initially but not that huge of a deal in either case.)

Let us enjoy the honeymoon.

We're all enjoying it.

On paper, without hindsight, is this move (or the Aardsma trade) better or worse than acquiring John Parrish?

Those are totally different situations.

The reason were excited is that every smart move reinforces our belief that this club is headed in the right direction. After the last 6 years how could we not get excited about that?

"After the last 6 years how could we not get excited about that?"

I agree with this, and I hope everyone understands that I’m excited about the team’s direction too. I just think some of the Z appreciation is trending towards the non-falsifiable.
If Bavasi had made the same moves, we would have seen it through the lens of his obsession with veterans and the ‘closer’ role.

I think a few people might have, but I think that most people came around to the idea that Bavasi was really good at building bullpens.

Pretty much any time he acquired a reliever from the scrap heap my reaction was “that probably makes sense.”

I am really not seeing the Parrish parallel

Parrish was acquired in the middle of the season for the purpose of patching up our bullpen. He wasn’t acquired on a minor league contract to see if he would work out like Cordero, he was acquired to fill a specific role on the team and to actually play in a bunch of real games in high leverage situations. That involves inherent risk, the Cordero signing is no-risk, where is the comparison here?

How about Aardsma then?

My point is this: John Parrish is/was ten times better than Aardsma and Cordero combined. Hyperbolic? Yes, perhaps.

Seriously, Parrish has been worth 1.4 wins since 2004 (according to Fangraphs). Over the same time frame, Aardsma has been worth 1…RUN. Cordero is coming off of basically the worst injury a pitcher can have, and was throwing 83 MPH last year. I LIKE THE PICK UP. I like it, there’s no risk. My question is more about perceived value. We hated the Parrish trade only because it didn’t work. It cost us essentially nothing, and was also basically no-risk – and hey, at least Parrish was able to play baseball at the time.

I hated the Parrish trade because saying "We need a high leverage reliever who's fuckin' BEEN THERE MOTHERFUCKER, you know?"

and then getting John Parrish and handing him a high-leverage role was fucking retarded.

Aardsma is not seen as the solution to our problems. Parrish was.

Parrish was a good baseball player, Aardsma never has been

That’s sort of my problem. Obligatory caveat that Aardsma does have a high upside, and it was a low-cost move, etc.

But Parrish wasn’t acquired to take the highest-leverage innings. That was always Putz’s job. He was there to be the second lefty, which is… I don’t know… middle leverage. I don’t know what Aardsma’s role is, but I have to think it’ll be comparable.

Parrish was not a good baseball player

Aardsma has more potential in his right pinky finger’s smallest hair follicle

As I asked below,

is there any stat you can point to showing this? Or is it based on draft order?

Are those the only two options?

I’m pretty sure that they are not and I’m pretty sure you know that.

The third options is making impassioned assertions

about hair follicles.
I’m open to an argument that he’s way better, but no one’s made one.

The scouting consensus seems to be that he has the tools necessary to be a quality reliever.

It’s tough to make a case based on his numbers because the sample sizes are so small.

Parrish was being relied upon for the 7th and 8th innings, too.

Along with Rick White

Parrish made exactly one appearance with the Mariners that had an LI over 0.21

Hm, well then nevermind.

I’m probably just thinking of the innings he came in, not how dire the situation was. Also, I am a bit bias because it felt like he blew it every time.

But I'm saying the Parrish trade wasn't no-risk at all

There was risk involved because we actually stuck him in the lineup to play real games and pitch real innings without really knowing what we were getting involved in. Whether it worked out in the end or not is kind of inconsequential because Bavasi planned all along to stick him in situations where he could potentially cost the team real runs and real wins. We don’t know yet if that’s the plan with Cordero but it sure doesn’t seem to be the case given his contract. If he works out in what is likely to be a long path back to actually playing in the majors sometime later this year than the risk is significantly less than just thrust Parrish into the middle of a contending season without knowing what we were getting into.

Parrish had nearly 200 Major League innings before coming to Seattle

He wasn’t exactly an unknown quantity. And he was only thrust into one important situation, and that was a game we won.

But he hadn't pitched at all in '06, so in that respect he was an unknown quantity in '07

I don’t have access to leverage indexes so I’ll take your word for it, I just had to go off my memory of the season and my memory was being very pissed off every time I saw him come in.

He played in 8 games

and most of those we got our nuts kicked in.

Nobody acted rationally when it came to Parrish or Rick White

The fact of the matter is that Parrish didn’t make a difference. White sucked a lot, but then so did the entire team by the time he came around.

It was also in the middle of a pennant race

and it’s not like Parrish was working his way up from Tacoma. That’s why the situations are different.

There's definitely reason to be a little mad at White

At least he pitched in a few situations that mattered.

If Zduriencik made a similar move

hell, if Zduriencik re-acquires Parrish himself in a pennant race, everyone will point to his stats to argue that it’s a great low-cost, medium-reward move. An undervalued guy whose results haven’t caught up with his peripherals, etc.

Depends on how they plan to use him.

Zduriencik has earned the benefit of the doubt so far.

I do want to add

That I was originally okay with acquiring John Parrish. I figured if he was used to mop up innings and preserve the bullpen regulars (who were dangerously being overworked) that we’d be better off for it.

And it seemed like that’s what he was doing until he came in to one game (featuring Felix vs. Johan Santana no-less) with a 3-1 lead. Suddenly, it was 3-3. That was basically the end of Parrish’s tenure with Seattle.

Getting John Parrish himself wasn’t a bad move as much as the context in which he was acquired. He was brought in to be a veteran presence in the bullpen and to work high-leverage situations.

Same with Rick White, except add “playoff experience”.

ThundaPC - March 13, 2009 reply

This was essentially my train of thought as well.

However, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bad, desperate move. We were counting on Parrish to be something he wasn’t, even if he didn’t pitch in high LI situations.

I remember a LL night at the Safe...

…and the “WTF? Why is Parrish wearing Moyer’s number???”

PositivePaul - March 13, 2009 reply

You mean Jason Davis

BrettJMiller - March 14, 2009 reply

JA-SON DA-VIS! CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!

Goose - March 14, 2009 reply

Ok that convinced me that LL night needs to happen again

BrettJMiller - March 14, 2009 reply

And wow, how could I forget the main reason these guys were acquired?

……

THEY’VE BEEN THROUGH WARS!

ThundaPC - March 13, 2009 reply

It doesn't matter what they did in since 2004, it only matters what they do now.

Also, that’s cherry picking, Aardsma pitched 10 innings in 2004.

Aardsma has better stuff, for sure. Cordero won’t be his 2005 monster self, but seriously, to call John freaking Parrish better than Aardsma or Cordero? Maybe, but I don’t think you’ll find too many scouts or statisticians agreeing with that,

Pick literally any combination of years you want.

last year, Parrish was worth 0.3 wins to Aardsma’s 0.1. Aardsma’s best year (2007), was the year Parrish was with the O’s and M’s… and they still tied.
At the time of acquisition, Parrish was better in win value, swstr, kSw, GB%.
Seriously, on what basis do you say that Aarsdma’s better outside of fastball velocity?

I agree. I never liked John Parrish, but he has played better in his career than Aardsma.

Aardsma have more potential, sure, but he hasn’t shown himself capable of harnessing that potential yet. Maybe in the future he will, but as of now Parrish is better.

My problem with Parrish is that I had no hope he was going to be anything great on the mound.

He may have got the job done, but I never felt comfortable when he was in the game.

Wilder. - March 13, 2009 reply

I'm pretty sure most closers are flyball prone.

It’s the result of being high-K pitchers, which most of them are.

It does seem like we're making too much of a big deal about every single one of Z's moves.

The only one I can recall that didn’t get front page billing was the signing of Jason Phillips to a minor league contract.

My reaction was 'meh'.

It’s still Spring training and I look at moves like this as an opportunity to give a player his last shot at a career. Happens in every organization.

So I agree, I just don’t see the praise justification when it’s not something the team is seriously counting on. If Cordero happens to join the club at some point this season and is successful, then is the time to look back and give credit to GMZ for being the guy to give Cordero his opportunity.

Wilder. - March 13, 2009 reply

So, results-based analysis then?

Certainly for people who favor results over processes, Z's reign hasn't produced a ton.

Admittedly, he hasn’t really had a chance to show what the team he’s built can do in the regular season, but so far the only improvements over Bavasi that I have seen are:
a) Better return on trades
b) Not over-valuing free agents

It is entirely possible that b) was out of his hands by the limited payroll this year, but I can give him the benefit of the doubt.

As far as all these minor-league invitations, however, I don’t see them as that great of an improvement over Bavasi. He signed Roy Corcoran to a minor league contract and no-one even noticed, as far as I can tell from the search of LL and USSM (feel free to prove me wrong), but Z gets front page articles every time he offers a contract to Shelton or Sweeney or Cordero. I feel like if Bavasi wouldn’t have gotten nearly as much credit for doing many of the same things Z is doing. Signing marginal players and bench bats won’t get me in a tizzy until we’re at the cusp of playoff contention anyway.

To be honest, I'm not really concerned about what people who favor results over processes think.

Other improvements over Bavasi:

Recognizes the importance of statistical analysis and has invested in bringing the Mariners up to speed.
Understand the concept of market inefficiency in general.
To piggyback on the last point, understands the value of defense.
Willing to take risks on low-risk, medium/high-reward players.
Tons and tons of others that we haven’t seen in practice but know exist in theory.

Keep in mind that part of the reason this stuff is getting front page articles is because nothing else is going on right now. Corcoran was signed right after the end of the 2007 season. That’s a lot different. Also keep in mind that the difference between Corcoran and Sweeney, Shelton and Cordero have some name recognition. People know who they are. No one knew who the hell Roy Corcoran was when he was signed.

Lastly, of course Zduriencik gets more credit than Bavasi; Bavasi did 90% of everything wrong. When you have a track record of being bad, people are correct to assume what you’re doing is bad. Zduriencik doesn’t have much of a track record, but what he’s done to this point has been overwhelmingly positive.

Those are two pretty significant improvements.

True, but they have nothing to do with being exuberant over signing Chad Cordero.

Why are we criticizing people for being too happy over a signing?

Does over excitement irritate people?

Apparently I should stop posting things when they happen

Apparently it does

This, too.

God forbid we actually find some enjoyment and confidence in an organization to which we dedicate so much time and emotion. It’s hard to break the “We’re doomed, God hates us” mentality, but I’m not going to criticize those who can.

I'm not sure why, but Jeff's "Mariners win the World Series" set of posts kind of rubs me the wrong way.

Who knows, maybe I’m not used to being a fan of a well-run team, but that sort of thing seems insanely premature, even to joke about.

At the risk of sounding like kind of a jerk, I think you completely and totally missed the point of those posts.

The point of those posts was to leave us all horribly depressed

I took them to mean that winning a World Series is awesome, but eventually everything goes back to normal.

Love baseball for baseball’s sake.

Except so far, judging by the comments, no-one has gone back to normal in those threads.

Did you read the last one?

Yes, and I also read the comments.

I’d like to think that winning a WS is more like taking acid – you never come down, you merely adjust.

and the enormously long one at the bottom. Not exactly back to normal.

Yes, my guess would be those people don't know what they're talking about

Jeff’s day 100 post was spot on the mark.

If your problems is with Jeff's posts, qouting a comment does nothing for your case.

Especially if that comment appears to be in jest.

Like I said, I'm not sure.

I’m not arguing that he should stop making those posts. They just bug me somehow, but I can live with that.

Thank goodness someone got it

Jeff Sullivan - March 14, 2009 reply

I could have told you that without a 10,000 word dissertation.

JI - March 15, 2009 reply

I, too, was trying to say that in a way that didn't sound dickish.

So thanks.

I don't think that Jeff intended to imply that we would win the World Series this year at all with those posts

I don't think so either. I just don't know why, but they bug me, and I can't explain it.

Which you're taking out on a fairly unexcited post about Chad Cordero?

My initial posts were in response to the poll in the Fanpost, which was insanely optimistic. Then I got side-tracked because I don't want to keep writing an essay.

Disliking the signing is irrational; which the poll shows

If the poll had been ‘do you think Chad Cordero will contribute to the Mariners’ there would have been a totally different result.

I never said I disliked the signing. I'm just not orgasming with joy at the though of Cordero in a Mariners uniform.

To me it’s just a standard move that any GM would do.

You're completely missing the point.

Is the point that it exhibits an excellent GM thought process?

Which therefore means it's not a standard move than any GM would do.

Texas made an offer for him too. I'm not sure any of us would call Jon Daniels an excellent GM.

Again, you're missing the point.

Were not excited because of this one move, we’re excited because of the dozens of excellent moves. Every good move (coupled with the near complete lack of bad ones) reinforces our belief that the men upstairs know what they’re doing.

No, but I'd give him credit

Just like I thought Andruw Jones was an excellent pick up

But the poll was asking specifically "Do you like the Cordero signing?"

3 people replied “no”, those 3 people are wrong, because there’s nothing to not like about a free signing with some upside. You don’t have to be crazy about it but if you think it’s a bad signing you’re just wrong. And now we’ve come full circle to the original context of the whole thread.

"My initial posts were in response to the poll in the Fanpost, which was insanely optimistic"

`

You:
“My initial posts were in response to the poll in the Fanpost, which was insanely optimistic.”

“I never said I disliked the signing.”

Poll:
“Do you like this signing?”

I would have voted "No Comment"

It’s not something I like or dislike. Odds are low that he makes a significant contribution for the Mariners. It would be like being excited when P. signed Randy Messenger last year.

But nobody was fucking talking about the people who voted no comment

GOD

You're missing the point of my reply to Matthew

His comment implied to me that my comment about the poll meant that I hated the signing.

No, it doesn't.

Maybe let it die now?

pdb - March 13, 2009 reply

Most people don't take 'Like' to mean 'Will Cordero be useful'

I certainly like the signing but don’t actually expect him to ever be worthwhile again.

Low-risk, high-reward maneuvers are not something any GM would do

See: our previous administration.

It’s about getting to that point, and perhaps beyond that – and every single movement in that direction should be celebrated. Period.

cwel87 - March 13, 2009 reply

Wow.

Did you hear that the mariners signed Derek Lowe?

Last time I trust this site...

I don’t see the point of this site if you’re reporting fake news. I’ve been telling my friends about Lookout Landing for some time now. I ended up telling my friends you guys had the scoop on Lowe to Seattle – now they’re like, "you idiot – what are you getting your news from there for? No thanks!"

I’m taking this place off my bookmarks.

Fool me once…

Neo Graham - March 13, 2009 reply

THAT'S IT I'M UNSUBSCRIBING RIGHT NOW

WHO’S WITH ME!!!!!

pdb - March 13, 2009 reply

I hear the Seahawks won Superbowl XL in your universe

They also won it in yours.

Neo Graham - March 13, 2009 reply

efsljkladfsjklfadsk;l

Robert - March 13, 2009 reply

Why does this comment need the Neo Graham handle?

Meta alts are hilarious?

Graham didn't even make that comment.

The signing of Chad Cordero is indicative of a big improvement in the processes.

That’s why people find it exciting.