Feel free to consider this a companion piece to Dave's latest at USS Mariner.
When discussing the upcoming winter and the 2011 Mariners, it helps to keep the budget in mind. And by helps, I mean it's essential. Otherwise, you would post many stupid comments about how we should just sign every free agent out there.
Here then is a rough guide to the 2011 Seattle Mariners' payroll. Players with long-term contracts are obviously the easiest to pencil in. I made some estimates for the arbitration eligibles but we actually do not have many of them. David Aardsma, Brandon League and Jason Vargas were the only meaningful ones.
Most of everyone else is filler; either people currently at the top of the depth chart or those that I project to be by April 2011 unless the team signs someone else. This isn't the place to argue whether Rob Johnson will be the backup catcher over Josh Bard or which players from Tacoma's bullpen will make the roster and which will not. This is the place to argue the salary numbers and the team's backup catcher isn't likely to make significantly more or less than half a million and the back of the bullpen isn't likely to be much more than minimum salary guys. Differences of a hundred thousand or so are marginal.
The Mariners opened this season with a $91.1 million payroll. If you assumed the same budget for 2011, the front office would have only $5.3 million to spend and that's an assumption that I would wager against. Seven million in money spent on players not with the team certainly hurts, as does Bradley's $13 million. It would be fantastic if he could return to being a worthy bat in 2011 and contribute something of value.
Special Dustin Ackley note: I list his salary at $1.5 million due to his draft contract. I do not know whether the Mariners actually account for it the same way they do other salaries. What I do know is that I counted it in the $91.1 million total for 2010 so you can remove it from consideration and it does not affect anything.
1 recs | 115 comments
Hopefully, by trading Aardsma and Jack Wilson we can open up another ~$10 million
ManifestDestiny - September 20, 2010
Who is gonna want Jack Wilson?
SethGrandpa - September 20, 2010
Jack Wilson
Marinerfanjake - September 20, 2010
his wife? maybe... ugh, he has an ugly mug. Does he even have a wife?
TIFO - September 20, 2010
Pretty sure he has a family
There was talk of moving them out when the trade happened. Maybe he found a girl who really loves UZR.
yuniform - September 20, 2010
I can only imagine their pillow talk
“Oh baby, you have such big… range”
“You’re so good with your… glove”
“Nobody plays the field like you do.” wait… ;-)
TIFO - September 20, 2010
Jack Wilson
Is there ANY way he is actually trade-able, that actually get us salary relief?
quacker27 - September 20, 2010
He could retire. With how oft injured he is, he might see the writing on the wall.
The Typical Idiot Fan - September 20, 2010
Wasn't there some talk from him along these lines?
Or was that speculation.
the other side - September 20, 2010
Here:
05/22/10
Janic - September 20, 2010
Thanks.
This makes me think he would actually consider it. Especially seeing the condition of the team and the fact that he didn’t get to play ending this year.
the other side - September 20, 2010
I don't want to speculate on Jack's motives, but if you're guaranteed 5 million dollars and a job to play baseball would you decline?
abender20 - September 20, 2010
Why did Johjima?
The Typical Idiot Fan - September 20, 2010
Because he went home to play for similar money.
pdb - September 20, 2010
And yes.
But I have a weird sense of responsibility.
The Typical Idiot Fan - September 20, 2010
I 100% believe this.
abender20 - September 21, 2010
There really isn't much that can be done with this roster
All the money is tied up in:
Felix (not going to trade)
Ichiro (not going to trade)
Bradley (can’t trade)
Chone (might have to eat salary)
Jack Wilson (definitely would eat salary)
Silva (the gift that won’t stop giving)
If you really want to open up payroll room and make the team better the only contracts to be moved are Aardsma, Figgins and Vargas. Everybody else basically is unmovable because they are awesome or really bad.
Edgar for Pres - September 20, 2010
Imagine the decisions to make if ownership wanted to cut $20M from that.
You could either move Ichiro, Felix and a couple pieces or everyone sans Ichiro and Felix.
Janic - September 20, 2010
Silva
There have been many bad deals made by the Mariners in their history, but Silva just might be the worst one ever.
Paul AB - September 21, 2010
Which Silva deal?
The one where they signed him for 4/48, or the one where they traded him and $9 million for Milton Bradley?
The Greg Hibbard deal and the Lowe/Varitek for Slocumb deal have to rival Silva.
nathaniel dawson - September 21, 2010
And yet still others.
Don’t forget the Freddy Garcia deal, the Carlos Guillen deal, and my personal favorite, the Rafael Soriano deal. Seriously, Rafael Soriano for Horacio Ramirez, did anyone think that was gonna work out?
Boy9988 - September 21, 2010
The Freddy Garcia deal was a good deal.
It just didn’t work out.
Goose - September 22, 2010
By my estimations, we're going to be a .500 team next year with no roster moves made, and not enough salary left over to bring good enough players to contend.
Which is kind of what everyone was figuring anyway, right?
A big chunk of change coming of the books for 2012, though, which is quite promising; especially if our rookie types do well in 2011.
lailaihei - September 20, 2010
Is this based on:
Regression of Figgins?
Improvement of Saunders/Moore/Smoak?
Vargas/Fister sustaining current production?
Just curious. I guess I see this team as about a 75 win team, so I guess I am not really that far off from you.
Ballard Erik - September 21, 2010
Isn't this what we say every year?
“Hey, with (deadweight player) coming off the books next year, we’ll be in greeeeaaaat shape!”
I remember hearing this about Sexson, Washburn, and so on. It’s getting rather old to continually be told “jam tomorrow”.
eponymous_coward - September 21, 2010
Except now we our GM is smart and won't be giving out risky long term deals to risky veterans...
God damnit Figgins.
Fuckmikereilly - September 22, 2010
How much for the manager?
Kermit. - September 20, 2010
I assume Tony LaRussa will want at least what Pete Carroll is making.
abender20 - September 20, 2010
Tony LaRussa, you went there of allll places
Kermit. - September 20, 2010
He comes with Dave Duncan!
Poochie - September 20, 2010 via mobile
This sounds kind of flippant and that's unintended.
Do manager/coaches contracts come out of the same pool? And didn’t Wak have at least one more year on his deal?
Kermit. - September 20, 2010
I believe coaches come out of a separate pool
Jeff Sullivan - September 20, 2010
And yes, he did
Jeff Sullivan - September 20, 2010
I Hear Torre is available, if the offer is "Exciting"
ambrosia2112 - September 20, 2010
All those cheap young starting players makes me very optimistic about our future
Although it seems like our roster is close to concrete for next year, which is disappointing.
MT Olson - September 20, 2010
Cost control is a beautiful thing.
abender20 - September 20, 2010
And hopefully some more fat will be gone by the time we have to arbitrate.
ambrosia2112 - September 20, 2010
So that Suzuki guy is kind of hurting the team with his huge salary.
But seriously, I think resigning Bedard might actually be a good idea. On a incetive laden deal. It’s possible we get some production out of Chone. And the fact the we are still paying Yuni 1 mil makes me either want to laugh my head off or cry. Not sure which.
the other side - September 20, 2010
Considering what we traded him for, crying about it would be retarded
Matthew - September 20, 2010
This is true.
I guess I forgot we picked up part of his salary.
the other side - September 20, 2010
Doesn't help for 2011
But at least in 2012 we see roughly a 30% reduction without making a decision (Bradley, Wilson and end of Silva payments)
aussie_m's_fan - September 20, 2010
Meant to add
So could it be possible to offer some decent players a 3 to4 yr contract with it being loaded on the last 2 to 3 yrs of the contract, and smaller money for 2011?
aussie_m's_fan - September 20, 2010
Yes
Matthew - September 20, 2010
One thing to keep in mind
Felix is going to be getting a pretty sizable bump in salary starting in 2012. All the way up to 19.2 mil for 2012
Scrupio - September 20, 2010
Also the last year of Ichiro's contract.
the other side - September 20, 2010
Wait, we're paying 19M for Bradley? (Silva + Bradley)
I thought the Cubs picked up a ton of that.
Faux - September 20, 2010
They did
Jeff Sullivan - September 20, 2010
Yeah, they pick up a ton of cash from us everytime they get the check in the mail
nathaniel dawson - September 20, 2010
I wouldn't be surprised if management put a cap on a $90 million budget
Given the drop in attendance, lack of revenue, and poor play of the team, I doubt Lincoln/Armstrong will allow Jack to spend as he pleases. The budget appears to swell and shrink along with the strength of the team, which I feel is a solid monetary strategy.
perfectstrat - September 20, 2010
Pretty sure the already put a cap on Jack Z last winter. Its only going to get smaller.
I think Chone Figgins will do better next year and be a 2.90 hitter and keeping up with Ichiro and his steals like he did this year. I’d rather see us keep Figgins, I think he will live up to expectations… that we had this year for him.
LeftArrow2 - September 20, 2010
Can we just skip right to 2012?
Eyebrows - September 20, 2010
Everyone dies in 2012.
I don’t see the merit in this.
the other side - September 20, 2010
But after the post season i thought
Bearskin Rugburn - September 20, 2010
Yeah we get our world series first.
Frankly, that might be the best time for the world to end anyway.
MT Olson - September 21, 2010
I'm in.
the other side - September 21, 2010
Going out on top!
bomdal - September 21, 2010
Oh so bittersweet.
I, for one, would welcome the end of the world if we win a world series.
d0nkey - September 21, 2010
Is Ichiro really $18 mil?
Didn’t he sign for 5/$90 with some portion deferred? maybe only $1 per season, but that frees up money to eat for someone we trade in the offseason
VanillaGorilla - September 20, 2010
Actually, it's $5 mil/year deferred
I have no insight into how teams do their accounting, but I’d imagine that they count the deferred portion against that year’s salary
xero3k - September 20, 2010
It's actually 17 million a year, according to Cot's
Decatur - September 21, 2010
5.5% interest!
He threaded the needle on that one. Two years earlier or later and he’d have been looking at 1.5-2% interest.
Jack Swan - September 21, 2010
Wouldn't matter either way
Because it was the same contract Matthew used in calculating the 2010 payroll. If its value for 2011/2012 goes down, the amount spent in 2010 does as well. For the purpose of this exercise, it doesn’t make a difference.
seattlecougar - September 21, 2010
Thank you!
You get a sticker:
Matthew - September 21, 2010
Gold Star!
It was always equated with “Teacher’s Pet” when I was 7.
perfectstrat - September 21, 2010
I was going to insert a Mary Kay Letorneau joke here
but I am not smart enough to think of a zinger.
Ballard Erik - September 21, 2010
That's less "teacher's pet" than "pet the teacher"
pdb - September 21, 2010
Well I'm not going to pretend its my idea since its not
but that rotation is just screaming for a veteran/innings eater/anchor/#3 whatever. So I guess most of the money and whatever they might salvage out of trading Aa goes toward that.
And that, in turn, means no help at C or DH, which are the only spots one can expect to get FA help.
Bearskin Rugburn - September 20, 2010
The annoying part is that we have both Bradley and Moore
Which makes upgrading those positions a bit difficult.
MT Olson - September 21, 2010
I'm sure Bradley will spend a lot of time in LF
and we need two catchers so Moore isnt that big a problem.
Bearskin Rugburn - September 21, 2010
You don't think Saunders will play LF most of the year?
$cHu - September 21, 2010
I think there will be some kind of rotation
but its hard to make that prediction before the manager is signed. Depends on the kind of guy we get.
Bearskin Rugburn - September 21, 2010
Annoying might have been the wrong word
“A clusterfuck of platoons because those guys need to play” might be a better way of saying it.
MT Olson - September 21, 2010
I've heard that a guy by the name of Cliff Lee will be looking for work.
I think “innings eater” is on his resume, too.
ralphie81 - September 21, 2010
Jarrod Washburn's available!
Seriously? Unless this innings eater is super cheap, no. Go look at Fister and Vargas’s WAR compared to the guys we had playing C and SS if you want to know my reasoning why.
eponymous_coward - September 21, 2010
Fister and Vargas have done well this year
But that doesn’t mean we should feel comfortable about them next year.
Edgar for Pres - September 21, 2010
It just struck me
That rotation is amazing because its every single one of those guys is from our minor league system (either by trade or draft) and cost controlled. It doesn’t look like an especially good rotation, but it’s not atrocious looking either. This is remarkable.
Bearskin Rugburn - September 20, 2010
My favorite thought
Is how once upon a time we were hoping some combination of Clint Nageotte, Travis Blackley, Bobby Madritsch, Bobby Livingston, and/or Jesse Foppert would help anchor down our starting rotation.
ThundaPC - September 21, 2010
Bobby Mads :(
JY - September 21, 2010
Austrailians are so unpredictable.
Ballard Erik - September 21, 2010
Wait until they actually pitch in 2011 before saying it doesn't look atrocious
Matthew - September 21, 2010
Can we really call Vargas and French "from our system"?
Vargas made his debut with the Mets and pitched all of 1 month with Tacoma before being called up to start for the M’s. French also made his debut with another team, and spent 5 seasons in the Detroit farm system before coming to us. I’d have to call them products of other teams’ minor league systems that came to us in trades.
nathaniel dawson - September 21, 2010
He said by trade or draft did he not?
Sec 108 - September 22, 2010
He said "from our minor league system (by trade or draft)"
I suppose it comes down to how someone would define that statement. I would assume “from our minor league system by trade” would mean a minor league player that hasn’t reached the big leagues yet and you bring him along the rest of the way. Neither player has spent much time being brought through our system, and both made their Major League debuts with other teams, so it seems to me like you would have to call them products of another teams minor league system. We just picked them up at the point where they were transitioning to a Major League career.
nathaniel dawson - September 22, 2010
It's like we learned from the Twins that cheap Carlos Silva = OK
Carlos Silva as free agent = :(
eponymous_coward - September 21, 2010
We might not have that much money but we don't have too many horrible holes in our roster
Maybe a SP and/or SS? I really don’t want French in our rotation so maybe that’s the major spot to fill.
Edgar for Pres - September 21, 2010
We have many horrible holes. It's a requirement if you lose 100 games.
Except all those holes are filled by young players, so we’re content to let them fail more frequently.
This is getting increasingly Freudian, so I’ll stop now.
perfectstrat - September 21, 2010
I'd say we have two holes in the rotation
because Pineda isnt ready and Pauley isnt good. 2B, SS, C and DH are also holes, so one extent or another.
Bearskin Rugburn - September 21, 2010
Yeah I agree with that
The thing about a lot of those spots is that by themselves, I’m ok with the players we have there. At a lot of spots on this team I look at the player who is penciled in at a position and say, “eh, that’s gonna be ok. He isn’t that bad. The rest of the team will make up for any problems he might have” but then I end up saying this for about 80% of the team.
Edgar for Pres - September 21, 2010
Pineda isn't ready to throw more than 160-170 innings.
He was ready to get mlb hitters out by this years ASB. Having him throw any more than two weeks in AAA next year would be a waste. As would having Ackley in AAA for any more than a couple weeks. Leave them in Tacoma for two weeks and get the extra year of control as in Longoria’s case. Prospects like this are too good to leave in Tacoma until June.
Jack Swan - September 21, 2010
I don't think he's as far along as you seem to
He’s certainly very good, pitching as he did at his age and level. But even the most glowing scouting reports describe his changeup and slider as works in progress and I don’t think it’s worth compromising his development to fill out the rotation during a rebuild year. If he continues to pitch as well as he has I’d be happy to have him up after the all star break.
Bearskin Rugburn - September 21, 2010
Felix was a work in progress when he came up...
What would be different between his development and Pineda’s?
ambrosia2112 - September 21, 2010
I think the biggest difference has been that from day one, Felix was expected to do great things
And showed every reason to believe that as he rapidly moved up the minor leagues. He was considered a special talent long before he got to the Major Leagues. Pineda has come on strong his last couple of seasons, but has nowhere near the track record or acclaim that Felix had.
Pineda’s workload would also be a consideration — he was limited this year, and is not likely to take a full starters load in the majors next year. Felix was already looking like a “horse” that was ready to step in and handle a full season workload.
nathaniel dawson - September 21, 2010
I'm thinking pretty much the same.
Pineda was great last year, and established himself as an excellent pitching prospect, but I don’t know if I could say he’s ready to step into a full-time spot in the rotation just yet. I’d like to see him start in Tacoma and then gauge his progress after a month or two.
Especially in his case, I see no reason for impatience.
nathaniel dawson - September 21, 2010
Yes, but there's also not a lot of upside currently.
It’s a roster that’s mainly guys who most would project to be replacement level to average next year. While eliminating holes is important, this team will be putting a lot of pressure on Felix and Ichiro if it is expecting to make the playoffs without additional help.
GhettoBear04 - September 21, 2010
I don't think it's expecting to do that
unless there’s some kind of pandemic in the Ranger clubhouse.
Bearskin Rugburn - September 21, 2010
The realistic goal for the 2011 season is 82 wins and breaking in the kids
The most likely outcome is probably 70-75 wins and the young players struggling.
CMC_Stags - September 21, 2010
I do not envy GMZ one bit this offseason.
I have a feeling he may be mandated to trim payroll yet again this year and here is why. Not only has attendance barely managed to pass 2 million, but the team gave more ticket discounts this year than I can ever remember. Half off season tickets. Weekly deals at seriously cut rates. Their profit line for each ticket sold this year is easily the worst in many years.
He will have to be incredibly creative and possibly even lucky to upgrade this roster.
Sec 108 - September 21, 2010
And what a vicious circle.
You have to trim payroll because ticket sales weren’t great, but in order for ticket sales to get better you have to win. In order to field a winning team you need to bring in good players not replacement players, but those players cost money which you already trimmed from the payroll. It seems like as a GM with a team that is worried about staying in the black (basically the not-Yankees) you are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to fielding a team. This is when you really have to rely on your scouting and minor league departments to find and develop good talent so it is more cost controlled than trying to get FA help.
seattle_since_81 - September 21, 2010
Some of this....
….is traceable to the upper management’s insistence that we don’t “rebuild.” Prior management took this to mean that we hollow out our homegrown talent, and that puts us into a deeper hole than we were in before.
I really think that a small amount of deficit spending (i.e., don’t go hog wild, but perhaps one or two key acquisitions) would do a lot of good in down years to pave the way for a rebound.
rtang - September 21, 2010
Say, I was recently an extra in a movie about this.
Joe Metro - September 21, 2010
I actually agree with the budget strategy.
It forces the GM to consolidate resources and focus on getting more efficient investments. Free Agency is by far the least efficient form of spending your money, and you can very easily operate at a loss in that department (see Figgins, Chone). By lowering the budget, you eliminate FA busts like Silva and get more value for what you produce. You can’t spend out of mediocrity—-that’s not a sustainable solution. The best thing you can do is find young, cost-controlled talent, and lowering the budget forces you to do that.
perfectstrat - September 21, 2010
But that puts you at risk of falling into that vicious circle
You can look at free agents and say they’re inefficient investments, but they are necessary investments that every team is going to have to make in order to compete. Unless you have the universe’s best farm system, you will never be able to put enough cost-controlled talent on the field to reach the playoffs without adding higher cost players. Every year that you reduce the budget and work in young, inexperienced players, you are likely seeing a reduction in revenue, making it harder in the future to acquire, either through trade or free agency, those talented players that can bring enough wins for your roster to be competitive.
Throwing in the towel, so to speak, and not taking advantage of one of the best ways to add talent to your team will likely cost you wins and future revenue. And what would you rather the Mariners’ owners do? Pocket the money they would otherwise spend on talent?
nathaniel dawson - September 21, 2010
Free agency is NOT one of the best ways to add talent to your team, unless you're the Yankees.
It’s certainly a way to do it and a tool you can use, but historically, I can point to many, many more teams that grew their own talent core and won a World Series through sustained excellence than teams that built them through free agency (even if we restrict it to 1975-onwards).
Like it or not, Jack boxed himself in for 2011 by his choices during the 2009-2010 offseason: Figgins and Bradley. Yes, I know, he got rid of HAHHAHA HE’S FAT Carlos Silva. Well, even if it was the right call… that’s still $30 million on the books for 2011 that it was his choice to have there, because he thought it was better than the alternative.
I don’t think you get to go to your bosses and say “give me more money next year” when you have a 100-loss belly flop, and the guys YOU asked to bring in are a huge part of the belly flop.
eponymous_coward - September 22, 2010
How are you going to add talent to your team if you don't have it ready-to-go in the minors?
Either by trade or by free agency. You can seldom get talent through trade without giving up equal talent in return. So you’re not usually “adding” talent to your roster. Free agency, on the other hand, allows a team to add talent to their roster at no expense to the talent you already have.
“Building through free agency” is probably not something the Mariners can ever hope to do. And very few teams have ever done that and had sustained excellence. But I would bet that every team that you can point to that grew their own talent core (with the one exception of Florida, 2003) also had a few key high-cost free agents that provided big production to that team.
It’s absolutely imperative that the Mariners focus on acquiring and developing talented, cost-controlled players to get back to the point of contending for a World Series. But lowering your budget and casting aside opportunities to add talent with the money you could otherwise spend gives away wins that can cost a team in terms of revenue. Reduced revenue means less of an opportunity in the future to continue putting talented players on the field. That’s what the vicious cycle is.
You can still make the same kind of smart, efficient moves with a $90 Million dollar budget that you can with an 80 million budget. You just have another 10 million that you can use to improve your team further. I can’t see any reason to think the Mariners would be better off with less money to spend than more.
nathaniel dawson - September 22, 2010
This sounds like Green Collar Baseball.
LonelyintheBleachers - September 21, 2010
Half off Season tickets started after 2008, to try
and drum up more sales/revenue/etc… So it may be a consideration, but nothing different from what he came in the gate with. Less people are going because we have a ton of fairweather fans in this city.
Plus, isn’t the stadium paid off now? In previous years a ton of the ticket price had to pay for stadium, does that change anything?
ambrosia2112 - September 21, 2010
Cost overruns are not paid off or else the team would be sharing profits with PFD.
Sec 108 - September 21, 2010
My offseason wishlist, based on this:
- a serviceable veteran C in the 1-1.5 WAR range who can share time with Adam Moore and save me from watching any more RoJo
- a not-complete-disaster 1-1.5 WAR SS who gives us a better option than Paperboy in the infield. We still bring back Paperboy, because it’s possible Ackley might not be ready, so we’d need to play Paperboy for a month or something.
- a AAAA LH 1B/DH bat, as Dave mentioned today at USSM. Cheap. So not so much Branyan on his current contract.
Hopefully you can squeeze that in within 5-ish million + trades, or whatever Jack has in his budget. I’m not expecting GOOD players. We’d have an Oakland A’s style roster at that point- not enough offense, serviceable defense and pitching, and be OK if not winning any divisions.
eponymous_coward - September 21, 2010
I'd certainly have a better wish list than that
But not one that is as realistic as yours.
nathaniel dawson - September 21, 2010
The first and third should be minimum salary players.
Seriously, if anyone pays more than 1M combined for a Quad-A DH/1B bat and an average backup catcher, then they’re bad at their job
Matthew - September 22, 2010
Well, let's take my requests as stack ranked.
And you work through the list until you run out of money:
- an innings eater guy for the back end of the rotation.
- a lefty out of the bullpen
eponymous_coward - September 22, 2010
Agreed
For #1, David Ross seems like a fit.
For #2, if Jack Wilson does the humane thing and retires, and we get his salary off the books, how about JJ Hardy? He’s a free agent in 2011. He wouldn’t be cheap, but it’s not like we have any up and coming SS’s in the system. Minus Wilson’s salary, it seems like it’d be do-able. Probably not if Wilson’s back at $5 million.
For #3, this should be the easiest to fill. There are so many options.
With those three, at least there’s a chance of putting something together. It’s a long shot, but if Ackley/Smoak/Saunders/Moore start to figure things out and hit like they did in the minors, and Pineda transitions well to the majors, there’s potential.
saltydog75 - September 22, 2010
Ballplayers under contract have the right to try to play, I think.
While as fans we think it’s humane to see ballplayers not try to play out the string, I’m not sure the ballplayers see it the same way.
eponymous_coward - September 22, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.