| By Chris Crawford |  | By 12-14-2011 |
Pretty simple really, this thread exists to discuss the soon to be settled Yu Darvish bidding.
1. Do you want him?
2. At what cost?
Also,keep a few things in mind. First, Nippon is aware of the winning bid, not the winning team. Secondly, reports are that Darvish would prefer to play on a West Coast team. And finally, Nippon has until 2:00 PM PST Tuesday to decide whether or not to accept the bid, but can decide immediately and we could find out the results soon.
Should Darvish be a Mariner?
darvish-discussion
Comments
The following 116 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Alex Carson on 12-14-2011 17:18:46 1) Of course. I want every interesting player. Darvish is interesting. 2) Much tougher question. If reports on what the winning posting fee and needed salary to pry him away from Japan are accurate, I don't know. Whatever price that won't stop Jack from pursing real offensive upgrades (Offensive like good at offense. Not offensive to watch), I'm happy with. This would be the first evidence that ownership plans to push payroll up if they win the bid, though. |
| 2. By: masonb on 12-14-2011 17:19:34 I think he'd be a great pickup, especially if Fielder is unattainable due to the obvious freeing up of availability of the prospects to go get a big bat. Question, I thought I had read somewhere before that in the posting process the team posting the player, in this case Nippon, doesn't necessarily have to accept the highest bid. Is that true? Seems like it would behoove them to accept the highest bid since they are getting nothing else in return. |
| 3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-14-2011 17:20:40 They do NOT have to accept, that is correct. |
| 4. By: Buhner on 12-14-2011 17:24:32 Go for it. Adding Darvish may even give us more leverage with Fielder. We would have the pitching depth to trade for offense. |
| 5. By: chemberry on 12-14-2011 17:24:55 I know the money for posting comes from a different budget than payroll, but the money is still money and I would rather use it to supplement the payroll and bring in Fielder and/or additional players. My point being I would be mad if the Mariners miss out on Fielder by 20 million but bid 25 million AND spend millions more on a contract for Darvish. The numbers floating around are scary for a guy that hasn't thrown a pitch in MLB. |
| 6. By: chemberry on 12-14-2011 17:26:22 Also, thanks for shutting down the pro-steroid/Edgar is a user guy. That was nuts |
| 7. By: masonb on 12-14-2011 17:32:43 I should have clarified, can they accept the second or third highest bid, or is it just accept the highest bid or do not accept at all. |
| 8. By: areucrazy on 12-14-2011 17:33:21 Is the winning bidder liable for anything if the player doesn't sign? If not, what would stop a team from posting an outrageously high bid to block rivals... |
| 9. By: titans12 on 12-14-2011 17:38:31 Spend the money on offense! |
| 10. By: nap5159 on 12-14-2011 17:41:14 @areucrazy because if you just throw out a huge bid, then the team will accept it. So then even if you don't sign the player, you just wasted upwards of 40 million dollars to keep him away from someone else |
| 11. By: areucrazy on 12-14-2011 17:42:29 Anyhow... as long as the Mariners either put the posting fee towards some non-standard payroll budget or account for it all in 2012, I'm all for Darvish, provided they can get a below market contract agreed upon. If the posting fee affect future multiple payroll budgets, then I'm less enthused... |
| 12. By: masonb on 12-14-2011 17:43:26 If the bid is accepted but the player is not signed, then the money is returned to the bidding team. There really is nothing keeping a team from throwing a 100mil bid out there to block a team and then never pick up the phone and call Darvish. Same thing happened last winter with the A's and Iwakuma. I've heard that it is possible that Selig could in that instance award the second highest bidder the bid, but there isn't precedence of that happening, but there is nothing keeping a team from blocking another team. |
| 13. By: areucrazy on 12-14-2011 17:44:39 @nap5159 From the little that I've read in the last 10 minutes, (while researching my own question) it seems like the posting fee is only paid if the player agrees to a contact. Didn't the A's bid on a player in the last couple years and not end up signing him or paying the posting fee? |
| 14. By: masonb on 12-14-2011 17:45:08 Darvish isn't signing for below market value. He has leverage and is the best starter remaining. He's gonna get paid very well |
| 15. By: nap5159 on 12-14-2011 17:45:08 As for Darvish, I see no problem with this, as long as it doesn't affect any other offseason moves. As I know Jason has said a whole bunch of times on twitter today, it wouldn't, but it's still something to consider I think. However, from reading about him, it seems like playing on the west coast is pretty important to him, so it seems like we'd definitely be able to work out a reasonable contract with him. By adding Darvish right now, we would have Felix, Pineda, Darvish, Vargas, Beaven/Hultzen/whoever. That's pretty damn insane. Plus, we could use Pineda to trade for a big bat (Justin Upton?!?!) or just trade Vargas for a medium bat (Maybe some kind of Carlos Quentin deal?). Plus, I think we give Darvish the best chance to succeed, since we're not asking him to come in and be our savior, like the Cubs/Blue Jays/Rangers would be. We're asking him to be a number 2 or 3, which should definitely help out his initial nerves of the MLB. |
| 16. By: areucrazy on 12-14-2011 17:45:25 Thanks @masonb. |
| 17. By: nap5159 on 12-14-2011 17:46:38 @areucrazy @masonb I was under the impression that the posting fee was the team's to accept, and keep whether or not a deal got done. But I don't know for sure, so I'll defer to your research |
| 18. By: masonb on 12-14-2011 17:48:00 Nope, Nippon only gets the money is Darvish signs. It's their compensation if you will for losing him for nothing (as far as players go). |
| 19. By: areucrazy on 12-14-2011 17:48:37 Sorry, but it would be insane for a team to pay market value for Darvish. He's a captive participant in the process. Worst-case scenario, Darvish should get market value less the posting fee. Even that is a bad business/negotiating move though. |
| 20. By: nap5159 on 12-14-2011 17:52:06 @masonb I gotcha. That makes sense now that I actually think about it haha. And @areucrazy I completely agree. I don't think Darvish should get market value. It's too difficult to predict how good he will be |
| 21. By: chemberry on 12-14-2011 17:52:21 If he really wants to play om the West Coast wait a year...if he isn't signed this year he is a true FA next season--his Japanese team gets nothing, and he can sign anywhere. |
| 22. By: masonb on 12-14-2011 17:56:00 That doesn't make any sense. He is going to get paid at LEAST market value. I'd be willing to bet he might get a similar or slightly less deal than C.J. Wilson just got. Sure there's a talent difference from the Japanese League to MLB, but the dude put up video game numbers and was much more successful than DiceK was over there. He's going to get paid like a king, otherwise what motivation would he have to leave Japan where he seems to be perfectly content. You can't offer him below market value and not expect to get laughed out the room. It would be bad business/negotiating to go into negotiations and seriously lowball him. That will get you know where. The team that wins the bid knows its going to take a ton to sign him. He's worst case going to be a #3 starters and what's the market rate for a free agent #3 starter? 10-12 mil. And this guy is like 26 years old. Don't be ridiculous |
| 23. By: PositivePaul on 12-14-2011 18:00:34 Signing Darvish & Drafting Hultzen... It REALLY sounds like the Mariners are trying to build a team to win 0 to -1. But like others are saying, so long as it doesn't stop them from adding offense whatever. I'm not sure I'd trade Pineda quite yet, but if Trader Jack can get long-term offense help by trading him after a Yu signing? Why not! |
| 24. By: Edman on 12-14-2011 18:12:57 I can't see that signing Darvish wouldn't affect payroll. Just because the posting fee doesn't come out of payroll, it still comes out of the overall Mariner budget. So, if the thought is that the M's could sign Darvish, and still have payroll flexability, I doubt that's true. As was said earlier. Money is money. They don't have a special matress under the bed fund. |
| 25. By: nap5159 on 12-14-2011 18:14:14 But we do have an "old guy in Japan who can give us money to sign his favorite players" fund |
| 26. By: Edman on 12-14-2011 18:17:04 Except that that old guy has little to do with the Mariners baseball operation. The belief that he's the Japanese version of Seattle's own baseball Santa Claus is almost as good a bet as watching for old St. Nick to land on your roof top. |
| 27. By: kleinjd on 12-14-2011 18:28:54 With the "Possibiliy" this is Ichiro's last year here, it would make total sense that the Mariners go after the next Big Japanese Star, thus keeping a heavy dose of Japanese fans following the M's. It certainly doesn't hurt to have trading options. If we have Darvish Locked up, it makes it much easier to move the young arms. If we don't sign Fielder, there are no free agent bats to turn to, the only way we will upgrade our sticks is trading our young arms at that point. I'm 100% in on signing Darvish! |
| 28. By: rotoenquire on 12-14-2011 18:45:41 I say go for Darvish. Here is my thinking. #1 You can NEVER! have enough good pitching. #2 Makes a Vargas/League trade more likely. #3 Can still get offense. With League and Vargas you can get a solid bat and more most likely from the Reds. Look at what the Atros just got for Melancon alone. I think we maybe looking to sign a OF(Cuddyer, Willingham) in loo of a trade of one of our OF's. Then you bring in a guy like Saunders or Moyer. The Reds maybe willing to give up Grandal, Frazier and Alonso. For say Vargas, League, Wells or Robinson and Moore. |
| 29. By: rotoenquire on 12-14-2011 19:01:13 Rumors are that the Blue Jays won the bid. With a bid over 50 Mill maybe the largest ever posted for a player.. |
| 30. By: Edman on 12-14-2011 19:05:33 Better the Blue Jays, than the Rangers. It will be interesting though. The Blue Jays aren't known to be big spenders on payroll. This could well end up over $100 million by the time it's done. Facinating, considering that the guy has never pitched an inning in the major leagues. But, that's baseball. |
| 31. By: SMariners11 on 12-14-2011 19:16:53 Roto, Where is this rumor that the TBJ won the bid? |
| 32. By: rotoenquire on 12-14-2011 19:31:32 Buddy I know who works as a Sports Editor. He has 3 stories by the same Journalist with a different team named. But he says the guy told him to prep the Blue Jays story 1st... So take it for what it is... could be about 120Mill to get it all done with Yu D... |
| 33. By: rotoenquire on 12-14-2011 19:32:25 The other 2 teams were the Yankees and Cubs.. |
| 34. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-14-2011 19:35:36 I hear there were "more than five bids" on Darvish. So that story is crap, whether Tor wins the bidding or not. The Fighters just got bid in hand a few hours ago. Nobody here KNOWS anything, yet. |
| 35. By: ripperlv on 12-14-2011 21:04:34 I've been saying that I think the M's make a strong bid, if for no other reason, the Japanese owner wants a Japanese star. Heck, if the billionaire wants him, go get JZ. Of course I could be full of crap, but it's just my little conspiracy theory. The posting bid being paid by billionaire Hiroshi Yamauchi, an old man, who wants Japanese stars on his team. Maybe he feels the same way about Fielder - nah, not a chance. |
| 36. By: Adam B. on 12-14-2011 22:31:39 Honestly, why wouldn't you want Darvish? Does anyone believe that the M's don't know about last years offense? Are we suddenly going to trade Felix for Jesus Montero because of him? Certainly it could turn out poorly if he flops and the M's have signed him to a huge contract, but then, the same could be said about Felix... |
| 37. By: rjfrik on 12-14-2011 22:48:30 I want Darvish bad. In fact he's my number one F.A. with Fielder 2nd. I want him because of the type of arm he is, because he is arguably the best pitcher to come out of Japan when it's all said and done, because of the following he would bring from the Japanese fans and media, because he already is a star and I think his light could shine just as bright over here and because the flexibility he gives you to trade away a couple of pitchers for young bats is no joke. I think unfortunately it's a long shot for us to claim him. My hope is someone like TBJ claims him and Darvish passes on signing a contract with them because he wants to be on the west coast. Then next year he says he will only play for SEA, SF, OAK, LAD, LAA or SD. I would really like our chances then. |
| 38. By: valencia on 12-15-2011 01:43:19 Is he a free agent next year? For some reason I keep thinking his contract in Japan doesn't end for another 2-3 years...if he's a FA next year, why doesn't he just wait a year, get his divorce over with, then join whatever team he likes for more money? Darvish + Fielder would be the dream off-season but I don't think we have the money. I hope I'm proven wrong, and Yamauchi is a secret Darvish fan, topless posters included, and is willing to spend over payroll to get him. |
| 39. By: PositivePaul on 12-15-2011 02:20:18 ...Darvish + Fielder would be the dream off-season but I don't think we have the money... They have the money. Whether or not they'd spend it, however, is debatable. |
| 40. By: vertigoman on 12-15-2011 02:52:58 It seems crazy to me that the new CBA didn't address the Japanese posting system. It limits draft comp and intenational FA comp but somehow this got swept under the rug. That said, hell yes I hope the M's bid and I hope they won. Question: If Nippon doesn't have to accept the highest bid but could instead accept the 2nd or 3rd etc... bid then what is there to stop a team from "compensating" Nippon for accepting their offer and only their offer. Ie, Mr. Nintendo tells Nippon to accept the M's bid and he'll pay the difference is posting bids. If Darvish had told Nippon that he'd only sign with a West Coast team then there would be incentive to work out some kind of deal. If insider trading can happen in an unregualted stock market then can't the same thing happen in an unregulated posting market? |
| 41. By: vertigoman on 12-15-2011 02:57:44 BTW, I meant the stock market analogy loosely. Not looking for some lessons on Wall Street ethics. |
| 42. By: outfieldgrass on 12-15-2011 09:39:10 Like Alex stated in the first response I would love to see Darvish in the Mariners rotation because he is a very interesting player and would make 2012 very exciting. However, he is going to cost a large amount of money and would likely hurt our chances to sign a big bat. Our pitching is solid right now. No, you can never have enough pitching but when you are operating on a limited budget you have to use those funds to improve the areas you are weakest at and that happens to be offense. Even if Fielder does not sign we cannot spend the money only for the sake of spending it. Lets go after a Cuddyer type bat and see who we can add in trade. That said I would not complain if we did sign Darvish. |
| 43. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 11:18:03 vertigoman, the idea is beyond proposterous that Mr. Yumauchi would make an under-the-table deal to accept the Mariner bid. The Commishoner's office would be all over the Mariners if they submitted a lower bid than anyone else. Not to mention that Mr. Yumauchi would lose face in his own country, which is a big deal. It would never happen. According to MLB Rumors, the winning bid was a "whopper". Now, what a whopper relates to in dollars has yet to be learned. But, you can bet it's going to be a record by a mile. Darvish isn't worth that, especially to a pitching deep team. Let's hope he goes to any other division than the AL West. |
| 44. By: vertigoman on 12-15-2011 14:12:53 Edman, The question was hypothetical. What would prevent this from happening? No reason to fall off your chair man. Saying that the commissioners office would be all over it or that loss of face prevents wrong doing doesn't answer the hypothetical question. The posting system is ripe for abuse and we've already seen it in action with teams submitting high bids with no intention of signing the player as a blocking move. If you have the rule that prevents this sort of dealing, please share. It was an honest question. |
| 45. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 14:28:28 Of course it was hypothetical. What's to prevent it from happening? The Commissioner. There doesn't need to be any rule. But you can bet if the Rangers outbid Seattle by $10 million and the Ham Fighters instead chose the Mariners, the Rangers would be crying foul, and the Commisioner's office would be asking for an explanation. I doubt there has been any blocking by submitting a high bid, and then not submitting competative contract offers to the player. You can bet that the Commissioner's Office monitors all of that. If they were to submit a contract that was well below current contracts for similar players, the Commissioner's Office would step in. They don't want a system where any team can bid to the moon, then simply not make a competative offer to the player. Because there isn't a rule, doesn't mean that the process isn't overseen. |
| 46. By: masonb on 12-15-2011 15:29:32 But Edman, That's pretty much what happened with the A's last year when they bid on Iwakuma and then didn't make any effort to sign him. It was pretty well thought that they did that to prevent him from going to Texas. I don't remember the Commissioner doing anything then. Why would this situation be different? |
| 47. By: dafix_isin on 12-15-2011 15:34:01 1. Do you want him? A: Heck yeah! As long as this is a decision made in the absence of things like a budget and stuff like that. From a pure fan's perspective, of course I'd like to see Darvish as a Mariner. It's not my money, it's ownership's. 2. At what cost? A: Putting on the thinkolator now. Hope that the actual winning bid is somewhere in the vicinity of much less than $50 million (not likely, but hey, the economy right?). I'd hope if the winning team was the M's (which qualifies as one of Darvish's desired west coast teams), he'd go for something in the ballpark of $7-9 million. I'm totally guesstimating here; what do I know about MLB salary negotiations? My salary figure is based on what Aroldis Chapman got. Given what the unknowns were about Chapman, and what is known about Darvish, given his body of work, which includes international matchups against current MLBers, I'm figuring he deserves more per annum. At the end of the day, whether it's Darvish or Fielder, all I can hope is that ownership has decided, along with Jack Z, that the window of opportunity is opening for this team. If not, then it's something like this: Owners (huddled behind a barricade, along with Jack, bullets zinging overhead): "Whew, this AL West arms race sure has gone loco! Everybody is guns blazing! Here, Jack, take this pocket knife. Good luck!" Jack: "Uhhh... what?" |
| 48. By: baseballfan on 12-15-2011 15:55:53 All bids go to MLB - MLB sends only the highest bid to the Japanese team to either accept/Decline - The Japanese teams doesn't see the other bids, so they cannot accept a lower bid. |
| 49. By: vertigoman on 12-15-2011 16:10:34 Edman, you have a LOT more confidence and or faith in fair play than I do. And no team would ever admit to blocking a team. They don't even admit to it on waiver claims. Oakland did as much last year with Iwakuma. No they didn't admit it. They don't have to. But it's going what they did. Beane taking advantage of whatever tools he has to exploit an advantage. If there is no rule that states Nippon has to accept the highest bid then the process is open to manipulation, just like everything else in life. This is how precedents are formed. Relying on the Comm. Office to right a wrong done by a fellow owner, not a good idea |
| 50. By: vertigoman on 12-15-2011 16:11:43 Thanks Baseballfan, that answered my question. |
| 51. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 17:02:54 No masonb, I doubt that the A's tried to block anyone. Many thought that, but there is no way the Commissioner's Office would let them simply not try to sign him. They have a general agreement with Japanese Professional Baseball and they aren't going to risk a war between the two baseball organizations. Why would Oakland worry about Texas? They have bigger fish to fry, like getting their own team in order. I'm sure they wanted to sign him, but were not willing to give him the contract he expected. It makes zero sense to waste a bid. The A's were miles from contention, and certainly not worried about one pitcher bumping them out of the division title. How do you know they made no effort to sign Iwakuma? Because they didn't, doesn't mean they didn't try. You need to separate what chat on the internet thinks, and what actually happened. Those processes are secret and seldom talked about. Because you didn't hear about a contract offer, doesn't mean there wasn't one made with the hope of signing him. Should Oakland have bid that high? Probably not, but the flipside to that coin is that Iwakuma does not have the ability to get a better deal elsewhere. So, prehaps Beane thought they had some leverage. Who knows, but let's not turn folklore into fact. vertigoman, considering that the Commisioner's Office sticks their fingers into the amature draft pie to "recommend" that certain contracts are too high, I think they are a big part of that process. You're free to believe what you want, but it doesn't make it truth. Only conjecture. Like it or not, it's how it works. To imply that teams would be allowed to make bids that aren't in earnest, is highly unlikely. |
| 52. By: masonb on 12-15-2011 17:23:31 Edman, It was all over the news dude. Iwakuma's agent was pissed that they weren't getting legitimate offers from Oakland. Of course, Billy Beane did not come out and say that's exactly what he was doing, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read between the lines and figure out that's exactly what was going on. You can argue with me all you want, but the A's didn't make a legitimate effort to sign the guy after they won the bid. What other reason would they have for making a bid then to block him from coming to a division rival? You can't simply make the assumption that the A's are miles from contention so getting one pitcher doesn't hurt their chances. Haven't we seen the exact same franchise, the A's, have really good teams when they weren't expecting to be good, early 2000's ring a bell. Didn't we see a similar thing happen with the D'Backs last year? You do realize that it's okay that other people have a different opinion and see things differently than you right? |
| 53. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 17:42:20 masonb, define "legitimate". From who's perspective? Billy Beane's or Iwakuma's perspective? What other reason? How about they didn't think he was worth what he was expecting to make? Isn't that a good enough reason? No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, just a pessimst with a creative imagination. And why can't I simply make an assumption, when that is EXACTLY what you're doing? Like I said, you can think what you want, it's a free country. But don't substitute conjecture for fact. |
| 54. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 17:45:27 And exactly when did I say that someone couldn't have a different opinion? I never did. But, because I present a counter argument, somehow I'm denying someone their opinion? |
| 55. By: masonb on 12-15-2011 18:13:41 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5898160 This basically lays out how the A's bid and then offered Iwakuma a deal for under 4 million per, which was more than likely less than what he would have gotten on the free agent market, due to him being a projected #3/4 starter. Those types of pitchers go for more than that on the market. My only point, if they A's weren't planning on offering Iwakuma a legitimate offer, meaning one that falls in line with his potential, then why even make a bid? They couldn't have in their right mind expected a pitcher to sign for 30-50% less annually than what he would get on the open market. It doesn't take a pessimist to see the underlying dynamic. What other motivations would the A's have had for lowballing him? Sure he was stupid for thinking he was getting Zito money, but the A's were equally stupid for thinking they could honestly offer him about what it takes to get a #5 starter or setup man. Aren't there plenty of guys like that on the market that wouldn't warrant them tying up 30 million to then lowball him? Doesn't make sense the way you are trying to present it. You pretty much nailed it on the head when you said, "Should Oakland have bid that high? Probably not, but the flipside to that coin is that Iwakuma does not have the ability to get a better deal elsewhere. So, prehaps Beane thought they had some leverage". Beane knew that he had the leverage to keep Iwakuma away and that there would be a chance that his agent would cave and take a below market deal, but taking into consideration that Beane is extremely bright, he would have known that Iwakuma wasn't going to take that when he could just return to Japan and then come back as a free agent. |
| 56. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 18:32:36 masonb, it's all conjecture. You can't speak for what Billy Beane knew. You're substituting your thinking for his. It's my opinion that the system that's in place. And if that was Oakland's tactic, don't you think that internally, the Commishioners Office would have taken steps to see that it doesn't happen again? As far as this issue is concerned, I'm done talking about it. Think what you want. I'm so sick of the "read between the lines" comments. It's a substitution for facts that are biased by whatever motivations the commentor has. The entire posting system is a joke. |
| 57. By: valencia on 12-15-2011 20:01:39 If you combine the posting fee with the contract, it's a whopping $34M over 4 years, about $8.5M a year. That's legitimate, whether the agent thinks so or not. The problem with posting is the pitcher must sign for 30-50% less than open market, because of the posting fee. Iwakuma overestimated his value, Beane offered what he thought was fair, it wasn't a lowball offer. |
| 58. By: rjfrik on 12-15-2011 20:20:57 Edman, You tell people that they can't speak for what Billy Beane and the A's knew, but then you act as if you know what the A's and Billy Beane knew. And you don't. No body does. You said, "How do you know they made no effort to sign Iwakuma? Because they didn't, doesn't mean they didn't try. You need to separate what chat on the internet thinks, and what actually happened." How do you know they did make an effort to sign Iwakuma? You don't, they very well could of done like the other posters said and made no attempt to sign the guy in order to block him from going to another team. No body knows, but, you can't tell people that there's only one side of the coin when in fact there are two. |
| 59. By: vertigoman on 12-15-2011 21:10:02 Edman, The commissioners office can't enforce what a team does or does not offer a player accept when related to arbitration eligible players. The posting system is flawed. Beane exploited the flaw as will others. as to my point before about the possibility of back room dealings regarding posting baseballfan put the issue to rest. He also did so politely and without aggression. You should take some notes. |
| 60. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 23:04:34 rjfrik, where in what I wrote, did I say that I knew anything? I'll repost it for you. "How do you know they made no effort to sign Iwakuma? Because they didn't, doesn't mean they didn't try. You need to separate what chat on the internet thinks, and what actually happened." Where in that statement, did I say that I knew anything? What I did say, is exactly what you said that I didn't stay, that nobody knows what the A's intent was....NOBODY. Yet masonb and vertigoman speculate as if it's fact, that Billy Beane had no other purpose other than to prevent him signing with aother team. Read what valencia wrote in post #57. That's spot on. If Iwakuma was expecting Zito money, he miscalulated. You cannot exclude the cost of the posting fee. So, he wasn't lowballed, he just didn't want to accept that he wasn't worth #1 starter money. No team ignores the posting fee. It's calculated in. |
| 61. By: Edman on 12-15-2011 23:06:35 Two words are missing which may help. How do you know they made no effort to sign Iwakuma? Because they didn't sign him, doesn't mean they didn't try. You need to separate what chat on the internet thinks, and what actually happened." |
| 62. By: baseballman on 12-15-2011 23:52:58 Well back to the actual rumors that JAC posted/updated... Both make sense, and without giving anything away I can't say I'm disappointed if the first doesn't come true as long as the second does! |
| 63. By: masonb on 12-15-2011 23:56:40 Two things: the agent for the player can certainly exclude the cost of the posting fee. His client is not seeing a penny of that money, so from the player's perspective the total cost of him signing including the posting fee is irrelevant. He is simply going to look at the money that he personally is gaining. All the posting money goes straight to the player's original team as compensation. From a bidding team's perspective, I get it, they are going to look at the total cost of acquiring said player, however, the player does not, and both the bidding team and the agent for the player are aware of this fact. Back when Matsuzaka was posted he got what? 9mil or so per year? Sure from the Red Sox perspective it cost them approximately 18-20mil yearly to acquire him, but the player got about in line with a #2/3 starter on the free agent market at the time. Fast forward to last offseason: the facts that we know are that the A's offered Iwakuma about 15.5 mil over 4 years. That is absolutely not what you would pay a #3/4 starter on the free agent market last year or this year. So how can that not be constituted as low balling? And I ask this again, if the A's had been aware and had the correct intentions of acquiring a #3 starter on the free agent market, why go and bid for one when you are only willing to pay him about 3.7 a year? You can absolutely infer that the A's bid on Iwakuma to block him and did not make a good faith effort to sign him. If you are unable to see that based on the facts that are presented, not to mention the fact that it was widely speculated by reliable national media members last offseason, then you are simply ignoring the possibility and being argumentative just for argument's sake. You are right Edman, I do not for a fact know Beane's intentions, but neither do you and you are simply inferring from the facts as you interpret them that the reason for Iwakuma not signing was because despite the A's making a good faith effort, the two parties just could not agree. You are writing off the reasonable inference that I and others are making that the A's did this to block his move elsewhere and stating that the reason we are dissolusioned is because we don't agree with your opinion that the process was pure and there was no wrongdoing because the Commissioner didn't step in. Just because my opinion and others opinions does not jive with yours does not make it wrong. |
| 64. By: on 12-16-2011 00:37:39 So the M's are getting in on the Gio Gonzalez front. Would appear to me given past experience To possibly to make it a 3 team trade. Like we have not seen that before. Also hearing Boras is looking for 10 and 250 for Fielder.. |
| 65. By: rjfrik on 12-16-2011 00:38:39 Edman, My whole point is essentially the point you responded with. Nobody knows anything. I think sometimes in your rebuttal with people you come off as you are claiming they are definitively wrong and your opinion is the only right one, when in essence it's just an opinion. That is all. Back to the Darvish situation. The more I read statements he has made in the Japanese media. I don't think he will sign with a team unless it's a west coast team. And I honestly think he will do this on his own terms and wait a year and then just sign with the team he wants to sign with when he is a F.A. Just my opinion. Hope it's a right one. |
| 66. By: valencia on 12-16-2011 05:06:50 @63 - Dice-K's $9M/year wasn't anywhere near fair value for a 2/3 starter. Dice-K was lowballed the same way Iwakuma was lowballed, yet everyone's okay with Dice-K because he accepted the offer. Boras was lowballed so badly he almost took the case to court to get the way posting is done changed. Was Iwakuma lowballed? Yes. But the fact is every posted player is lowballed by 30-50% fair market value. That doesn't mean Beane didn't try to sign him in good faith. It meant he used his leverage and the posting fee cost to make the best offer he could, the same way Boston did on Dice-K. @65 You're misinformed - he's not a FA for another 3 years. If he wants to come next year he has to post again. And while he might have a "preference" for a West Coast team, he won't turn down another team. Especially not after all the work he put to prepare for the move, bulking up 20 lbs and getting used to pitching on 5 day rest. Is it possible for the posted player to just openly demand what teams he would sign with? Kind of like the NBA, or the Japanese baseball draft. |
| 67. By: Edman on 12-16-2011 09:07:03 The Gio Gonzalez makes no sense. Why would the Mariners want more of what they have a surplus of? The only way it makes sense is if it's a three-way deal. The Marlins were interested, but didn't match up with what Oakland wanted. Perhaps Jack is working that angle. But, I can't see him doing a straight up deal. |
| 68. By: maqman on 12-16-2011 10:46:09 I find Edman's viewpoint more cogent. That's just a personal observation, I don't have a secret source in the commissioner's office. |
| 69. By: Edman on 12-16-2011 13:35:12 It's okay, valencia, I get it even if masonb doesn't. Some choose to believe popular opinion, rather than facts. {Edited. Let's not go there, thanks!} |
| 70. By: baseballman on 12-16-2011 13:37:03 {Edit: We'll moderate - let's not attack other posters, thanks.} |
| 71. By: masonb on 12-16-2011 13:46:14 My bad Edman, how dare I read all the stories that were coming out around that event and felt free to make my own inferences and observations from them. Dice-K did get lowballed. I agree. However he was lowballed about 15-20% approximately from what a #3 starter on the market was getting on the market at the time. Iwakuma was offered under 4 mil a year. That's not #3 starter money and isn't even in the ballpark. The two situations are not similar. My only question and it continues to be passed over to only be substituted by personal barbs, is why would Beane and the A's knowingly lowball Iwakuma, who was projected by most in the industry to be a #3/4 starter less than half of the going rate of the same type pitcher on the market when there were other alternatives that did not require a posting fee? If you wish to take things at face value and not believe that there wasn't some intent to keep him from ending up with another team, then that's your opinion which you are certainly entitled to, but to COMPLETELY write off the possibility that that is what could have happened is just being close-minded. At least show some respect for others' opinions without {two minutes for name-calling} {Cue-ing N-Sync in 5...4...3...} |
| 72. By: masonb on 12-16-2011 13:47:37 The mods are taking care of it and rightly so. {Yep} |
| 73. By: rjfrik on 12-16-2011 13:53:19 {Hidden. We're done with this off-topic conversation now I hope :-)} You are right Edman, I think the Gio thing would have to be a three way trade or maybe they really wanted Darvish and realized they didn't get him, so this is plan B. ? Valencia, Do you have a reference for the 3 years? I read that if he declined to sign he only had to wait one more year. Thanks |
| 74. By: baseballman on 12-16-2011 13:54:30 My fault on post 70. Won't happen again! |
| 75. By: PositivePaul on 12-16-2011 14:05:44 Okay, hopefully we're done discussing Nellie Fox, since the M's are covered for years at 2B ;-) Dave Cameron wonders: "So everyone's willing to give up their best pitching prospect to get Gio Gonzalez, but no one wants Edwin Jackson? Why?" That's a good question... |
| 76. By: safecochatter on 12-16-2011 16:19:44 on one hand that's a good question indeed. perhaps that's why he's been on so many teams in a short time.. on the other i don't care what dave cameron thinks. if i did i would go to his site,but i don't care,so i don't. |
| 77. By: PositivePaul on 12-16-2011 17:04:39 on the other i don't care what dave cameron thinks. if i did i would go to his site,but i don't care,so i don't. I hear ya. My point in making the comment was: 1) Why would the M's be involved in trading FOR Gio Gonzalez, especially since the asking price has reportedly been so high? and 2) Why is no one talking about Edwin Jackson -- where are the rumors as to who's talking to him and where he'd end up? I only associated that comment with Dave because he's the one who asked it originally on Twitter. Indeed, when I care what Dave thinks I'll go read Fangraphs or USSM... |
| 78. By: rotoenquire on 12-16-2011 18:23:19 Only way the M's are in on Gio is it's a 3 team deal. Like I said before. JackZ has a knack of getting those done. I sat thinking about how that would work and who all is interested in Gio. How does this fair to you all. The M's Send Oakland T. Walker SP, A. Liddi 3B The Nat's Send the M's D. Norris C The Nat's Send the Oakland E. Perez OF, B. Peacock SP The A's Send Gio to the Nat's The A's send M. Taylor OF to M's We have pitching Depth to deal and we get a Solid C for the future with a top end bat. We also ad a OF bat in Taylor who has no place in Oak right now. But has huge upside. A's get that block buster they want and the Nat's get that Sp there looking for. A's get T. Walker SP, A. Liddi 3B, E. Perez OF, B. Peacock SP Nat's get G. Gonzalez SP M's get D. Norris C, M. Taylor OF |
| 79. By: marinerforever on 12-16-2011 18:55:28 Interesting trade idea although liddi has no vaule and i believe that walker is the best of the bunch of our young up and coming arms and would need more for me to give him up |
| 80. By: Edman on 12-16-2011 19:04:55 rotoenquire, no thank you. Michael Taylor and Derek Norris is all Seattle gets in return? Are you kidding me? Neither of those guys is ready to be on a major league roster. What does Taylor offer, that we can't get in Wells or Robinson? If Jack gives up Walker, he had better get back way more than two minor leaguers. There had better be someone with some proven experience at the major league level, before I'd even consider trading someone like Walker. |
| 81. By: Edman on 12-16-2011 19:26:04 Walker is rated by nearly every prospect related as either Seattle's #1 or #2 prospect. Both Norris and Taylor aren't even in their club's top five. Start talking a deal that includes someone like Logan Morrison, then you could bend Jack's ear. You don't trade the best prospect in your system, for anything less than someone else's best at a different position, or a legitimate major league ready bat, in my opinion. |
| 82. By: rotoenquire on 12-17-2011 01:07:02 Norris is the Nat's #2 prospect behind Harper by Baseball America. AFL RISING STARS 2011 and AFL ALL Prospect Team 2011. I don't know what sites you go to. But you need to change them. Taylor is a top 10 prospect with the A's was the center piece in the Holliday Trade. Taylor was projected as a .280 20-20 guy before hurting his wrist 2 years ago. The idea with a 3 team trade is each team gives up a tad less but all end up with what they want. With Walker he is one of there top 3 pitching prospects. But again we have a ton of them. While Norris I think has more value at a C position with his bat. And from all accounts is a huge upgrade with his Def. As well. That being said this is just an IDEA for discussion. Could do the same with the Mets or Marlins. be the same as getting K. Shipworth C and M. Dominguez 3B from the Marlins. Even tho Shipworth is further away than Norris. Norris is ready by the end of this next season if not mid season. |
| 83. By: Edman on 12-17-2011 03:37:37 If you're gonna quote a source, you should check it out first. BA's 2012 Top Ten for the Nationals has Norris at #9. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2012/2612574.html I suspect Jack isn't interested in trading any of his top three minor league pitchers for more minor league players. |
| 84. By: bodhizefa on 12-17-2011 08:32:01 I'm glad you're not in charge of the team, rotoenquire. I appreciate the effort on your behalf, but your valuation of various minor league players as well as big league players seems askew. Taijuan Walker could probably net Gio Gonzalez all by himself (or close to it). And at this juncture, guys like Derek Norris, Matt Dominguez, Kyle Shipworth, etc. are lower-rung prospects. They were all pretty horrible last year, and their stock is significantly down. Any deal involving Taijuan Walker should net us a lot more than those middling prospects. I'm still hoping Zduriencik figures something out with the Reds for Jay Bruce or Votto involving Pineda. The Reds have been blessed in that their top competition in the NL Central have all downgraded this off-season due to free agency, so they are in prime position to make a play for an upper tier starting pitcher. The more I hear about Votto, the less likely I think it is that we could get him. But I think we could have a shot at Bruce, and I believe he'd be a perfect fit for the M's. Grandal and Alonso don't interest me as centerpieces in a Pineda deal, so I wouldn't want that to happen. If the M's can't convince the Reds to do something, I wonder if the Rangers would want Pineda at the cost of Profar. McCutchen or Logan Morrison would be my other choices, although I'd probably want more than just Morrison himself. I think those names are a lot more in the range of what we should be able to get for Pineda as opposed to Derek Norris or Matt Dominguez. |
| 85. By: valencia on 12-17-2011 12:12:48 @73 - http://www.npbtracker.com/2011/09/weighing-in-on-the-darvish-rumors/#content "Darvish will not be an international free agent until after the 2014 season." I trust NPB tracker over pretty much anything regarding Japanese league stuff. @82 - "I sincerely doubt that Norris and Desmond would net "at least a CF and a middle of the rotation starter." Dealt as a package, together they might net a CF OR a middle of the rotation starter. Maybe." - minorleagueball community. Walker for Norris is nuts, they don't even think they could get a MOR starter for Norris. If you want a 3-team trade, something like Walker for Gio for Morrison/D-Brown/Montero would be the most basic setup. And where the heck are you getting your prospect evaluations from? Dominguez is Miami's #2 prospect but Sickels is ranking him B- due to a bad bat. Miami's system is awful outside Yelich, if we deal with them it's for Morrison (or Stanton - one can dream). |
| 86. By: Madison Mariner on 12-17-2011 12:29:02 Similarly, bodhizefa, I'm sure glad you're not in charge of the team, either. It's already been said many times that the Reds are not going to trade Joey Votto, and I think it's logical(by extension) that they're not going to trade Jay Bruce. They have a small window of opportunity(2 years) to compete and they will seek out a young, cost-controlled starter who will fit in at the top of the rotation. And it looks like the M's just lost their opportunity to obtain Yonder Alonso and Yasmani Grandal(or some combination of prospects from the Reds) for Michael Pineda: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/reds-acquire-mat-latos-for-alonso-others.html The Reds get Mat Latos, and the Padres will get Yonder Alonso and others. It's a good bet that Yasmani Grandal will be part of the package, too. D*mn! |
| 87. By: rotoenquire on 12-17-2011 12:42:01 Have you guys seen the package for Gio the A's want from Detroit? J. Turner SP, N. Castellanos 3B, D. Smyly SP. Need to not look through blue colored glasses. Turner and Castellanos are ranked higher as a prospect than Walker nationally and Smyly is near the middle of the top 100. Walker ranks around 23-30 depending on the web site you look at. Gio is a proven product and will net far more than than a prospect. Edman thanks for the new link the last one I had from them was in Sept. I was just getting tired of the bickering and tossed something out there for further conversation. That line that was running was getting nasty.. lol Then change Norris for Rendon 3B Nat's and Taylor for M. Stassi C Oak.. |
| 88. By: rotoenquire on 12-17-2011 12:43:45 You also need to consider the M's are likely to draft Apple. Another pitching arm who is close to MLB ready. And would be in the m's top 5 prospects when he joins the team.. |
| 89. By: Madison Mariner on 12-17-2011 12:54:02 Looks like the haul for Mat Latos is: --Yonder Alsonso --Yasmani Grandal --Edinson Volquez --Brad Boxberger Latos has 4 more years of team control(1 more year than Pineda--he's at 2 years, 79 days according to Cot's), so all things considered, perhaps the M's could have gotten 1 more player thrown in if they had offered Pineda? Guess we'll never know now. :( |
| 90. By: Saltydawg05 on 12-17-2011 12:54:34 Let other teams overpay for Gio. He is a solid starter, but nowhere near worth our top prospect. For a low#2 or solid #3 SP? No thanks I'll pass. Wouldn't have minded that deal the Padres got for Pineda. Volquez could replace a good portion of Pineda moving to Safeco and huge upgrades at DH (Alonso) and a solid catching prospect in Grandal. |
| 91. By: Madison Mariner on 12-17-2011 12:54:39 And by 'Alsonso', I obvisouly meant 'Alonso'. Whoops. ;) |
| 92. By: Madison Mariner on 12-17-2011 13:01:30 And, by: 'Latos has 4 more years of team control(1 more year than Pineda...)' I obviously meant 'Latos has 4 more years of team control(1 less year than Pineda...)' Typing in a hurry and thinking don't go together. :) |
| 93. By: rjfrik on 12-17-2011 13:04:04 Are you kidding me!!! The Padres got Alonso, Grandal, Volquez and Boxberger for Matt Latos? Holly hell what a haul. I would of done that trade in a heart beat. This is why you go get a Yu Darvish, so you can ship off Pineda for a big haul like this. Then you have Felix, Darvish, Volquez, Vargas, Beaven/Hultzen in the rotation. and a lineup of 2B Ackley RF Ichiro DH Alonzo 1B Smoak LF Carp C Grandal CF Franky 3B Seager SS Ryan. And then you could ship out Carp and another one of our young OF for a 3B if you have to. That lineup would be young and deadly in a year or two. I can't believe the Padres received that much. Boxberger probably ends up in their bullpen as well. Essentially they acquired 4 young MLB players for one pitcher who's good but not elite. |
| 94. By: FatBat on 12-17-2011 13:31:35 That is a pretty good hall. I wonder though, what petco might do to Grandal, Alonzo most likely could hit anywhere. As doors keep closing I just can't help wondering what is Jack doing??? Good news though Boras thinks Fielder should wrap up before the new year. |
| 95. By: valencia on 12-17-2011 13:33:28 @87 - Turner's about where Walker is, but Castellanos probably doesn't break Top 50. The community at Sickels is projecting him around #70-80. Walker, Franklin, Campos is similar to the Detroit price, which is a big no thank you. @93 - Latos is about as good as Pineda. Slightly worse K/9, similar BB/9, a year older. It's not surprising he got so much. That's the price of a good young starter (and why Jack is accumulating as many as he can). |
| 96. By: rotoenquire on 12-17-2011 13:41:06 And the M's sign G. Sherrill RP... Ummm, ok... |
| 97. By: ripperlv on 12-17-2011 13:43:10 78. We also ad a OF bat in Taylor who has no place in Oak right now. But has huge upside. Are u kidding? If Taylor can't win a job on a team without an outfielder, then why would we want him? He is becoming Oakland's Mike Saunders. He was supposed to be a big power guy, but has bombed so far. T. Walker has possible #1 upside. You don't trade those type of guys unless you get over-whelmed. Taylor/Norris is a serious under-whelm IMHO. |
| 98. By: maqman on 12-17-2011 13:47:23 The good thing is the Latos deal sets a high floor for Pineda's value in a trade. Pitchers, especially good young cost controlled starters, are the gold standard now in baseball and Z has collected a lot of value for the M's. |
| 99. By: titans12 on 12-17-2011 14:00:05 Great deal for the Padres.Great young talent and I think Volquez will be helped out pitching in a pitchers park. |
| 100. By: rjfrik on 12-17-2011 14:15:43 That is true maqman, it does set the floor. I wonder if the Blue Jays lose out on Darvish how desperate they could be to grab that front line pitcher to compete. I wonder what Z could get for Pineda now that the floor has been set. Would love to get Lawrie. I would do just a straight swap for him. |
| 101. By: tkballer22 on 12-17-2011 14:16:06 I sure hope Z has something up his sleeve, because the deck of cards keeps getting smaller and smaller. Now that the Reds made this deal, its safe to assume that Votto will definitely be unavailable. I can't believe that we weren't able to make this deal with Pineda. It would have shored up two, if not three areas of need with this team by giving up a player who excites me, but is honestly, expendable. The gloom and doom is starting to set in, as we head towards Spring Training. My opinion is that Fielder will not sign here (he'll be a Cub), Nippon will accept Toronto's offer and Darvish will go there. This is turning out to be one of the most craptastic off-seasons in recent history. Not only are the Mariners being silent, but their division rivals are getting to be some of the strongest teams in baseball. My crystal ball tells me that we will not sign any bats, not make any trades, and just hope that the youth will continue to get better and hope to rely on our young pitching. And I hope to God I am wrong.... |
| 102. By: VikingArthur on 12-17-2011 16:12:50 Wow! I cannot believe what the Padres got for Latos. I don't view him in the same league as Pineda. Latos strikes me as a guy who would be a career 4.00 ERA guy in the AL. Good pitcher but not in Pineda's class in my opinion. That said, I would have done that deal in an instant for Pineda. Hell...I would have taken Bruce straight across. 101- Yeah... I agree with you, I'd trade Pineda straight across for Lawrie. Given what Latos just brought back, I'd think we could get him and more but there is no way Toronto is giving him up. They are building a juggernaut at the PERFECT time with Boston imploding and the Yankees fielding a senior citizen team. They may win that division next year, it would not shock me at all. I am sure they'll get Darvish in the fold. Romero, Darvish and Morrow is a MUCH better top 3 than either NY or Boston (or anyone else in the ML outside of Philly). Jack better get busy and NOW! |
| 103. By: DKulich44 on 12-17-2011 16:34:56 I can see why the Padres took that deal, and it is a haul, but I'd be unimpressed with that return for Pineda. I also think Latos is pretty close to Pineda talent wise, if not his equal, although Pineda has an extra year of team control. I don't believe in Alonso much, he might be an average 1B at best. The key is Grandal, who needs a little more time to show of he is legit or not. If Grandal turns into a good bat with good defense it's a wash, but otherwise I don't think this trade is nearly as one sided in favor of the Padres as people are making it out to be. If Pineda is traded and doesn't bring back a legit MLB ready bat, which I don't think you can say about the Latos trade, I'll be unimpressed. |
| 104. By: titans12 on 12-17-2011 17:10:13 Latos has 3 years of ML experience and I would rate him ahead of Pineda who has only done it for 1 year. Their numbers were very close last year. I wonder if Pineda/League could have gotten the same package.Don't know if Jack was even interested in those players. |
| 105. By: rotoenquire on 12-17-2011 17:32:46 The Pod's just got a SP, CL, C and 1B all for one SP and they all will play this year. And this deal allows them to trade Rizzo. Which will net them more talent. I would trade Carp, and insert name here _________ for Rizzo and let him DH and concentrate on hitting.. |
| 106. By: Edman on 12-17-2011 17:40:29 I'm sure that Jack was at least talking to the Reds. Trades by nature are always difficult to put together. They must not have been able to match up. I'm not sold on Latos, so it kind of surprises me. If Volquez can stay healthy, the Padres made a major deal. Grandal is the major piece. I'm not yet sold on Alonzo. Carp may end up with a better career that he ends up with. rjfrik....just how is Darvish a game changer for a similar deal with Seattle? Nobody has Darvish yet, so planning on him at this point is putting the cart way before the horse. No team would make a deal like this, based on the hope of signing Darvish. Darvish isn't any team's property yet. And, he may decide that he didn't get a big enough offer. Trying to tie him to this trade is makes no sense. You think that the Reds would wait around until Seattle was done dealing with Darvish, if they did have the winning bid? And, you think Jack would pull a trade until he was sure that he had Darvish signed? I understand your manlove for Darvish, but let's not stretch it beyond what it is. Right now, he's floating somewhere out in baseball space with a destination unknown. |
| 107. By: Mackie on 12-17-2011 18:13:42 I agree with what tkballer said in comment #101 with the statement "I sure hope Z has something up his sleeve, because the deck of cards keeps getting smaller and smaller." I am a bit more optimistic that some changes will be made, but yes, with each passing day the Mariners' options seem to become more limited. Looks like that was a great trade for the Padres... |
| 108. By: titans12 on 12-17-2011 21:00:21 What do you mean -we just got George Sherrill. I really wished they would have put in for Aoki from Japan.I got to see him play over there a couple times and he is an exciting player.Brewers just got him or at least won the rights.Maybe next year ! |
| 109. By: Jon O on 12-17-2011 21:02:05 Since the M's have signed Sherrill, could they flip Furbush for Todd Frazier to split duties with Kyle Seager at 3B in 2012? |
| 110. By: rotoenquire on 12-17-2011 23:59:55 The Reds most likely are done trading. They just tore into there farm system. They are most likely going after Cordero and bringing him back. So that leaves a possible 3 team deal involving the Nat's and M's and A's. Take one of our TOP 3 pitching prospects Hultzen, Paxton, Walker. Most likely one would need to be in the deal. Rendon 3B, Goodwin OF, Norris C are the Bats to consider. Who would u all take in that group? Coming from the A's on of the following: C. Carter 1B, M. Stassi C, M. Taylor OF. Or would just going after Rizzo be a great get. Maybe Carp and name another player _____? |
| 111. By: Edman on 12-18-2011 00:21:01 I stopped playing the propose-a-trade game a few years ago. It's nearly impossible to predict and only causes frustration. Some read them, then when they don't occur, get upset, even though they were never really a possibility. It's just a personal thing, so I just wait to see what actually happens. I may suggest players that could be available. But, trying to figure out what team A wants, and what the Mariners would give seldom work out. |
| 112. By: greentunic on 12-18-2011 11:13:50 I'd love to have Darvish. If we supposedly have 7 current and hopefully-soon-to-be aces, then we have a strong chance of ACTUALLY having three or four a la the Philidelphia. I can dream. |
| 113. By: rotoenquire on 12-18-2011 11:21:03 The Blue Jays look to be another suitor for Gio and an option for a 3 team deal. With guys like A. Gose OF, C. Perez C, J. Marisnick OF. The M's could get some decent Value there as well. |
| 114. By: rotoenquire on 12-18-2011 11:22:37 What about bringing in Zumuya on a minor league deal with an invite to Spring.. Guy still hits mid 90's. He needs to work on his breaking stuff tho. |
| 115. By: marinerforever on 12-18-2011 12:01:46 Zumuya on a minor deal sounds like a plan to me |
| 116. By: DKulich44 on 12-18-2011 12:11:44 Zumaya has a lot of teams interested and will most likely get MLB job somewhere. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |