Now confirmed through a couple different sources, the Texas Rangers have claimed Ryan Garko off waivers from the Mariners. Seattle clears his entire salary and his roster spot (which was going away anyways).
Proceed to blow this way out of proportion.
0 recs | 92 comments
So does this mean we can quit hearing about Mike Lowell?
Jeff Sullivan - April 1, 2010
What do you think?
Matthew - April 1, 2010
Jarrod Washburn spotted taking out garbage while facing in Seattle's general direction
lemonverbena - April 1, 2010
Boy I hope so
westbrook - April 1, 2010
And hey, I beat you by 2 minutes, but who's counting.
Me.
lemonverbena - April 1, 2010
We are not amused
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
Now we can offer Washburn $2M. Neato!
Sec 108 - April 1, 2010
Cot's contracts has Mike Sweeney down for $650k if he makes the major league roster.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul means no extra money for Washburn.
Janic - April 1, 2010
It does save you money over optioning Garko to AAA
If you option him you have to pay his 550k AND Sweeney’s 650k, meaning 1.2mil total instead of 650k. It’s obviously not just about saving money though, they must either really hate Garko or really like Sweeney (or both) or they would just keep Garko and actually have more money to spend total.
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
But some 40-man player is still getting ~$400K (or whatever minimum is nowadays)
so it’s not 1.2M vs. 1M, right?
Or am I doing this wrong?
JonBBT - April 1, 2010
From my understanding Sweeney is taking Garko's spot on the 40 man
So by letting him get claimed you’re subtracting Garko’s 550k and adding Sweeney’s 650k. So it’s true we’re not really “saving” money overall, we’re just saving money over what it would have cost to keep Garko in the organization and also add Sweeney to the 40 man. Ultimately if you wanted to option Garko the total cost would’ve been 1.2mil, while if you let him get claimed it’s 650k or whatever Sweeney is owed. I think.
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
Ryan Garko sounds like he smells
Jeff Sullivan - April 1, 2010
And sucks at defense.
ARock - April 1, 2010
Oh shit!!!
Now we have no backup for Kotchman/Sweeney!!! We’ll be lucky if we win 70 games this season!!! Shit!!!
Ike Clanton - April 1, 2010
And our second string bullpen catcher is below replacement level
We have no chance.
PascoJoe - April 1, 2010
Everidge will save the day. He's in Tacoma, right?
BrettJMiller - April 1, 2010
SEASON OVER
I Lick Squirrels - April 1, 2010
M's news flowing at breakneck speed! Assume! React! Wail!
lemonverbena - April 1, 2010
Not. A. Gefilte Fish.
lemonverbena - April 1, 2010
I've always loved the idea of eight birds being able to lift a whale
since whales weigh like 40 tons
Inkara1 - April 1, 2010
Maybe they're swallows
Matthew - April 1, 2010
Fuck.
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
African or European swallows?
pdb - April 1, 2010
I..I don't know
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!
seattle_since_81 - April 1, 2010
It's not a question of where they grip it, it's a question of weight ratios
Eight 5 oz. birds cannot carry a 40 ton whale
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
This would have worked so well as a response to me
Matthew - April 1, 2010
This would have been fantastic
seattlebruin - April 1, 2010
I wish it had appeared for me before I hit post
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
It's not the weight of the birds that matters, it's the lifting power they generate.
And in this case, they don’t need to create much lifting power, since the whale payload is clearly very light – the ropes aren’t even taut. Unless, of course, they’re solid (perhaps carbon fiber?) and pre-formed into those arcs.
Chris Hafner - April 1, 2010
What kind of whale?
seattlebruin - April 1, 2010
What kind of bird?
eagles?
seattlebruin - April 1, 2010
Fail Whale
No, really.
Janic - April 1, 2010
Also, half the birds are facing the opposite direction.
They’re trying to create a spinning whale
Matthew - April 1, 2010
The really strange bit is that the ropes don't appear to be secured to the whale in any way.
The whale would likely just slide out of the ropes into the red-and-white water.
Chris Hafner - April 1, 2010
Well, it forms more of a lattice work at the bottom
which probably creates enough friction to avoid that so long as the birds maintain a roughly level pitch.
Matthew - April 1, 2010
I think the lava would scorch the underside of the whale
Perhaps the birds have lifted him this far and are just now preparing to drop him.
Jeff Sullivan - April 1, 2010
Is that lava?
I thought it was swimming in melted orange vanilla ice cream
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
!!
Matthew - April 1, 2010
Deep-fried whale injected with cheese sauce?
abender20 - April 1, 2010
The point is that the tweety birds are FAILING to hold the whale
They never shoulda tried! Stupid twitter birds
lemonverbena - April 1, 2010
Perhaps this is it.
What if we assume that the whale started far above the lava/melted ice cream/cartoonish water through some unknown means and is now plummeting down just as we would expect? We just don’t see its downward motion in this picture. The birds and their rope structure aren’t able to hold the whale – of course they can’t.
So, the birds and the rope are not actually applying any force on the whale – they and the rope are falling at the same rate as the whale, which explains why the ropes are not taut.
Chris Hafner - April 1, 2010
What if it's a flying whale? Or if it's leaping like a dolphin and doing neat tricks?
then it’s the birds that are failing, by interfering with the trick. Stupid unladen swallows.
pdb - April 1, 2010
What hasn't been addressed is that this whale is clearly enjoying the experience
Perhaps this is some sick whale bondage fetish scenario.
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
Well, when the ropes rub against the whale juuuuuuuust right...
pdb - April 1, 2010
And it does appear to be a sperm whale.....
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
Its blowhole goes off?
Ike Clanton - April 1, 2010
The ropes would still be taut
The whale would be dragging the birds down, hence tight ropes
Graham MacAree - April 1, 2010
I'm arguing that they're all falling at the same rate, like skydivers in formation.
Ropes, birds, whale – all falling at the same rate, no relative speed differences, no force being imparted from one falling body to the other, no force to keep the ropes taut.
Chris Hafner - April 1, 2010
So the birds have given up and have stopped generating any lift at all?
Graham MacAree - April 1, 2010
I think it's arguable whether they ever generated lift at all.
Based on all the other inconsistencies that need to be explained here, that seems to be the most likely explanation. I mean, hey – those don’t even look like real birds.
Chris Hafner - April 1, 2010
I thought when Matthew said to blow this out of proportion he was talking about the Garko loss
I guess I was wrong
Gihyou - April 1, 2010
Spoken like a true swallow apologist
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
You mean a swallower?
seattlebruin - April 1, 2010
Thank you
royalcurve - April 1, 2010
There's no need to apologize.
I actually prefer it.
PissedMick - April 1, 2010
The only thing I see wrong in this Improbable scenario
is the lack of even a mention of the bowl of petunias.
jnbt02 - April 1, 2010
Well done.
Perhaps this whale is also thinking, “Oh, no – not again.”
Chris Hafner - April 1, 2010
The real question is, how much does the rope weigh?
AceJC - April 1, 2010
Maybe
It’s a beached whale, and the birds are vultures in the process of dispersing its entrails
Telegraph - April 1, 2010
I can't get over the whale having the Mariners logo tattooed to its face.
How the hell did that happen?
Wilder. - April 1, 2010
I stamped it on him, and without your help even!
lemonverbena - April 1, 2010
And here I was expecting to read about Garko.
This was way more entertaining. Hooray for random whale tangents.
ABQmsFan - April 1, 2010
Losing runs to keep Sweeney and them handing them to your rival isn't wonderful.
abender20 - April 1, 2010
April Fools?
jameslcrockett - April 1, 2010
On Garko
Jon Daniels is a motherfucker.
Bearskin Rugburn - April 1, 2010
Are you fucking me
Dewey N - April 1, 2010
Please god let the answer to that question be no
because that brings a whole new dimension to what I’m doing right now, which mostly just involves working at my desk.
pdb - April 1, 2010
Jesus it's not THAT small
OlSalty - April 1, 2010
He's just a little stretched out. It's not you.
Eyebrows - April 1, 2010 via mobile
Thursdays are $2 You-call-it nights down at the Bullpen.
It’s understandable.
Eyebrows - April 1, 2010 via mobile
Xander Crews would say it's like throwing a hot dog in a town.
BrettJMiller - April 1, 2010
The answer is yes. Absolutely, yes.
Chris Hafner - April 1, 2010
Did he at least buy you a nice dinner first? Or give you cab fare home after?
pdb - April 1, 2010
WE ARE DOOMED!
Doomed I tells ya, doomeddddddddddddddddddddd!
skywaker9 - April 1, 2010
Thank you
Dewey N - April 1, 2010
Fucking finally somebody treats this with the severity that it needs to be treated with.
Robert - April 1, 2010
His OPS against us this year: 1.500<2.500
stupidquestions - April 1, 2010
Meant to have an x in between those.
stupidquestions - April 1, 2010
Under
Dewey N - April 1, 2010
Disagree
Robert - April 1, 2010
He's gonna turn into this generation's Rafael Palmeiro
We’ll rue the day…
jnbt02 - April 1, 2010
Actually it will be 5.001
ARock - April 1, 2010
This is the worst run team in baseball
Poochie - April 1, 2010
I think RRS needs to help you out with that sentence.
PissedMick - April 1, 2010
Base-ball.
Graham MacAree - April 1, 2010
Until Z trades to get Yuni back that sentence might not be 100% true
pdb - April 1, 2010
Being the second worst run team in baseball would make that statement 100% untrue.
DrunkAmerican - April 1, 2010
The Kansas City royals aren't a baseball team.
Though I suppose they’re a “team” in “baseball.” Semantics.
harkening - April 2, 2010
Now we know there was no master plan beyond telling Garko to GTFO and STFU.
He was just a worthless part after all. Our backup for the 1st base situation is Everidge and Carp. I wouldn’t be surprised if Z just decided he’d rather have one of those “youngsters” get a shot at proving something than handing at-bats to Mr. Smelly, who doesn’t really have any upside at all.
Sukafish - April 1, 2010
Mike Carp isn't a very good defender and Garko is a much better hitter. Tommy Everidge is a fatty.
abender20 - April 1, 2010
I don't see why you have to throw his ass into the argument.
Kermit. - April 1, 2010
Because it was too large an issue to ignore?
ChristopherA - April 1, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.