| By Chris Crawford |  | By 08-06-2010 |
Yesterday's loss brought the Mariners exactly to the 2/3 point of the season. This really has been one of the fastest seasons I can remember. And to that I say -- thank goodness.
The Good
Jason Vargas has been left out of this section in the past for one reason and one reason only -- a belief that he isn't that good. Since he's now put up those numbers through the trade deadline -- it's time to give the left-hander his due credit. Vargas isn't missing bats like he was at the beginning of the year, but he's done a better job of getting ground-balls and his command has been much better then expected. I don't think anyone believes that Jason Vargas can put up the same type of numbers next year -- but the Long Beach State product has earned a spot in the 2011 rotation, that's for certain.
The Bad
While the Mariners didn't give up very much to acquire Russell Branyan, he hasn't exactly done his part to make it a winning trade. Branyan has an OPS of .708 in his twenty games in Seattle -- and has struck out in nearly half of his at-bats (30 of 71). Branyan's option would call for the left-hander to make $5 million -- and there probably isn't a cheaper option to DH for 2011 that could produce as well as Branyan has in Seattle, but some production in the months of August and September would make me feel a lot better about paying Branyan that much.
The Ugly
The talk of firing Don Wakamatsu is about as ugly as it gets. The Mariners are last in all of Major League Baseball in:
Batting average
On-base percentage
Slugging percentage
OPS (obviously)
Runs
Doubles
Triples
Home-runs
Total-bases
To rank below the Pirates and Astros in offense -- and those teams have to bat a pitcher -- is pathetic. Earl Weaver combined with Tony LaRussa and Gandhi couldn't lead this team to victories. No, it's not a reason to give Wakamatsu praise -- he needs to do a better job next year. But doesn't Wakamatsu deserve credit for the job he did in 2009? That team shouldn't have been anywhere near .500 -- much less have a winning record -- and if he gets the blame for this year, he should get the credit for last. Lots of things need to change about the 2011 Mariners, Don Wakamatsu isn't one of them.
gbu----august-5th,-2010
Comments
The following 113 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Chris Crawford on 08-06-2010 02:25:01 Just to clarify -- I'm not sure if Don Wakamatsu is a long-term solution as the manager of the M's. I just don't think firing him is the prudent move. |
| 2. By: Lamda on 08-06-2010 03:54:15 true - he screams the type of manager that gets a bad team into a good position and then gets replaced by that 'expert' manager to take you to the pennant. However, this year has been so atrociously bad that he just might not get another chance next year. Seems to be that he's almost completely lost the clubhouse this year whereas last year he had it in the palm of his hand. I said this in my forum and I think it still rings true - I think Wak's status as Manager next year might be determined by just how much of a chance Z thinks we got of winning in 2011. If payroll doesn't increase by a decent margin and we only got 10mill to spend thus leaving 2011 to be the year we watch Saunders/Smoak/Pineda/Ackley, etc mature - then sure, why not leave Wak in there. We went newbie manager in Wak - odds are pretty good our next manager should be a proven winner-type manager. You don't go out and get one of those guys to babysit the kids. |
| 3. By: Chris Crawford on 08-06-2010 05:07:41 That's an interesting theory, Lamda. Definitely one a lot of clubs subscribe to. Personally, I think managers are over rated -- the impact they have on a club is fairly negligible. There are the rare managers who do such a good job with thte clubhouse and manage pitching staffs so well that they might add some wins, and of course the reverse. I dont think Wak is either one of those -- but I like to see guys get their fair shakes. |
| 4. By: fat spiderman on 08-06-2010 06:02:57 Pet peeve: People spelling Gandhi incorrectly. |
| 5. By: Chris Crawford on 08-06-2010 06:41:39 Pet peeve -- spelling words incorrectly period, will edit it. |
| 6. By: ajhedglin on 08-06-2010 07:56:01 That is a pretty specific pet peeve. |
| 7. By: Uncle Al on 08-06-2010 08:32:20 Lamda The M's already have a tenative budget for 2011 of $96M and that assumes Bedard and Branyan at $1.5M each. The only way to reduce anything is to trade Bradley at $12M, Figgins at $9M, Wilson at $5M, Lopez ar $4.5M, Aardsma at $4M, and RRS at $3M. Those are the options. And they could still want to do something with Kotchman and his Arbitration as they may want and be able to get him for about $3M. There is no way the budget gets raised for 2011 with declining attendance and we'll be lucky to even get a $95M budget. Zduriencik is really going to have to do his magic to free up $10M to spend in 2011. |
| 8. By: Jackson on 08-06-2010 11:51:19 Cot's has Jose Lopez with a 2011 club option of $4.5M with a 250k buyout. I don't think RRS is going to get $3M in his first year of arbitration. Kotchman's a non tender, the arbitration cost is too high even if you think he'll take a pay cut. |
| 9. By: Jason A. Churchill on 08-06-2010 12:02:32 Lopez's option is for $5 million because he reached the PA minimum's for it move up $500k, Branyan's mutual option is $5 million with a $500k buyout and Bedard's option is for $11 million, not $1.5. Clearly, the M's will buy that out for $250K and say goodbye. RRS, if heis even on the roster, is probably due more than $1 million, but less than $2 mil, via arbitration. |
| 10. By: maqman on 08-06-2010 12:39:08 I don't see Kotchman, Lopez and maybe RRS and Branyan coming back next season. Their performances this season certainly don't justify it. Using Wak to babysit next season has some logic to it but he has made some bad judgement call too frequently this season for my taste and I like the guy as a person. He personifies "Good guys finish last." |
| 11. By: Docmilo on 08-06-2010 12:55:41 There is no way the M's can afford to get into the FA market next year and just when Bradley comes off the book, Felix's price doubles. There is nothing left to do than to play the kids. The M's need to fill their roster with as many league minimum salaries as possible. Bradely needs to be gone next year. Hopefully a club will pick him up and pay his league min. salary and that pays for his replacement in Wilson or Halman. The M's can't afford to pay Lopez next year. Next year it's Tui or Figgins at third. I'm hoping Zduriencik can move Figgins next year to someone like the Braves, paying probably a third of his contract will be necessary. This team will be sinking or swimming with youngsters next year. What are the chances of getting close to .800 OPS numbers from Saunders, Smoak, Moore, Ackley and Tuiasososop in 2011? I don't want to hear about FA signings this off season. The only FA I would like to see the M's go after would be Cliff Lee. That's unreasonable, so this winter should be about moving Aardsma, Lopez and Figgins. I don't want to see Kotchman back. Hopefully we can send him to Boston this month so they're not tempted to offer him arbitration. 2011 will be a stepipng stone. Let's not dream of competing and screw it up all over again. |
| 12. By: Jason A. Churchill on 08-06-2010 13:24:22 All of you, so far, are assuming the club sticks with the current payroll number. Why would we assume that? Howard Lincoln, Chuck Armstrong, Jack Zduriencik, nor anybody else that would be in the know at this stage, has come out and said anything of the sort. Maybe it stays the same. Maybe it goes up $5 million, maybe it goes up $15 million... heck, maybe it goes down. But we shouldn't be building a roster in August. It's meaningless. |
| 13. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-06-2010 14:09:08 Thanks for being the voice of reason Jason. Having said that I can't imagine a scenario where payroll doesn't decrease before opening day next year. I do see an increase in 2012 regardless of attendance numbers. Ichiro's contract ends in 2012 and I'm sure the team doesn't want to see him pack up and leave so I can't see the team continuing to lower payroll for more than one more season. |
| 14. By: Uncle Al on 08-06-2010 14:15:52 Jason Of course they buy out Bedard's option for $250K. I used a $1.5M amount which included the buyout if the M's decide they want to keep him. Same thing with Branyan using $1.5M which includes his option for $500K. And yes it may be meaningless right now but it still tells us that 2011 is screwed up and not going to be easy. |
| 15. By: Edman on 08-06-2010 14:26:34 Thanks, Jason. I get real tired of people playing with a budget in August, before anyone knows what they'll do for next season. And it just kills me that some folks think your ahead by contantly eating salary, to move a player. In case you haven't noticed, it doesn't make anyone's job any easier. Trading Figgens next year, when you're likely losing Lopez at third? How are you ahead, when you have to send a large chunk of money, to be able to move him? No way any team is going to take him if Seattle only covers one-third of his salary. You in essence add the difference to whomever replaces him. So, for fun, let's say Seattle does move him to the Braves. The braves are going to want more than half his salary covered by Seattle. Let's say, they want $5 million of his $9 million per season covered. You have a whopping $4 million savings. Who are you going to get to replace him? Addition by subtraction seldom works. We're stuck until the affects of the Bavasi signings are done. |
| 16. By: Jason A. Churchill on 08-06-2010 14:34:26 Why in the world would Seattle want to guarantee Bedard any money at all after missing all of 2010 -- after missing most of 2009? Fool them once... Even a million bucks is too much to guarantee. Minor league deals are what Bedard has in store for him. And Branyan's option is for $5 million, not $500k. If the club doesn't pick that up and buys him out for $500k, he's going to go out and look for 4-5 million on the free market, just like last year. No chance he stays in Seattle for a million bucks. And it doesn't tell us anything, Al. If they upped payroll, the club could add a few good players via trade or free agency. If they cut it some or kept it the same, it means it's a rebuilding year -- what they NEED to do. Screwed up? Screwed up is buying pricey vets and creating false hope for a town dying for a good baseball team. It's irresponsible management AND OWNERSHIP. If I were the owner, everyone below and above Zduriencik would be canned after this season. I need new leadership. It's been two GMs and several managers and it's just not working. Something has to change, and changing the GM and MGR hasn't done the job. Time to try something else. |
| 17. By: Lamda on 08-06-2010 14:35:36 #7 - i'm with you on this Al - and I said basically as much. I don't think they raise payroll very much at all IF at all thus leaving the kids to play the only option. I then furthered that by saying if that is the plan, then you don't fire Wak this offseason and let him babysit one more year and then replace him with a better manager. Granted coaches don't have a lot to do with the team, atleast not as much as some people suggest. They do have some to do with it though and you can't deny that. You have to give it to coaches that go places and just always seem to win. Its the coaches that know how to always get the most out of their players. Can you say that about Wak this year? Can you even say he has the players playing the game the 'right' way? Have we played sound, fundamental baseball this whole year? Heck No. And that does fall on the coaches. As per payroll - they do really need to raise it 15-20 mill this year. Attendance has dwindled because we've put out a poor product year after year. Part of that has been due to some poor contracts and a reduction in payroll not allowing us to make up for it. It won't get any better if we basically do nothing next year. I submit that we could spend Bradley/Silva's money this offseason instead of the following - if the right deal/player comes up. Meaning you can up payroll 15mill this offseason and then the following year when Bradley comes off the books, you just don't replace that money. I don't know if the right player will be available but thats an option. |
| 18. By: Edman on 08-06-2010 14:38:02 No Uncle Al, it tells us that you think we're screwed. And, rational thought would dictate that now is not the time for the M's to increase budget. They need to deveope a better core, before they do. Really, what difference does it make? Leave Jack to do his job. He's got a lot of work to do, but he had a lot of work to do when he took over. The M's are in the worse shape I've seen them in, even back in the eighties. But, it's repairable. And money, isn't going to fix it. Good baseball decisions will. |
| 19. By: shemberry on 08-06-2010 15:15:30 Gotta say that I don't believe the M's are in the worst shape they have ever been in. I am actually excited about where they are. Do I wish we were better already, of course, but I see a strong farm system, a GM that gets it, Felix, Smoak, Guti, and see hope. |
| 20. By: Edman on 08-06-2010 15:47:24 I should have said, before Jack took over. |
| 21. By: southpaw360 on 08-06-2010 17:06:50 I don't get why people think we would have to eat money to get rid of Figgins. By the way, I think he should stay. Anyways, if a team was interested in free agency last year why wouldn't they still want him? He has underperformed slightly this year but not enough to pay his salary. 3 more years at 9 million is very reasonable for a player of his talent. Would anyone trade Milton Bradley straight up for Oliver Perez? Salary is a wash. I think it is worth a shot. |
| 22. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-06-2010 17:51:16 I wonder how much call there would be for Figgins to be traded if he had been allowed to play his best position. His elite level 3B defense would have overshadowed both the offensive and defensive contributions of himself and Lopez combined for the entire year. The Braves wanted to aquire Figgins and there was no talk of the M's paying any of his salary, Jack wisely said no. |
| 23. By: Edman on 08-06-2010 17:57:06 Figgens didn't underperform slightly. He fell off the end of the earth. Nobody will trade for him without including a lot of money. Why? Because they don't have to. His value right now has fallen significantly. Seattle would have to pay someone to take on a potentially bad contract. Any negotiator with half a brain would use this season as leverage to say, "This might be as good as he is, through theh remainder of his contract." Milton for Oliver......been there, done that. To keep trading bad contracts isn't going to help the team. Seattle is better off to see if Bradley can turn it around next year. They have nothing to lose, at this point. |
| 24. By: The Great Pumpkin on 08-06-2010 18:15:37 Off-Topic, but an interesting question. (to me at least) Which one of our prospects will have the best career, in terms of value to the team? 1) Ackley 2) Smoak 3) Pineda If you could only have one going forward, who do you take? |
| 25. By: marinerforever on 08-06-2010 19:03:52 why does everyone thnk we are in such bad shape. yes this was a complete and utter disater. but it isn't like anyone predicted that we were gona be a worse hitting team than a little leauge team. but the future is bright it has been a fantastic year for are minor leaguers alot of the people who needed to take steps foward have done so pineada ackley prothyess raben truinfel along with the trade to pick up smoak and beaven and who ever we get to draft whether it be be a prime bat or a frontline arm. let the kids grow one more year. As far as the current roster you start by cutting bradley i dont think you are going to find a team that would even pay two million for him he is done cant stay healthy cant hit cut your losses thats what would have happened had you still had silva and he was awful so why would it be any different it is a sunk cost I am still figgins believer move him back to thrid base to start next year he is really starting to hit lefties and that is what was killing his average whether or not ackley is ready or you find a stop gap as for lopez i think you have to just bite the bullet and cut ties maybe you find a team willing to give a b- prospect for him otherwise buyout contract and move on branyan option needs to be picked up since you are not going to find anywhere near the production for 5 million sign cliff lee while we are not going to be winners next year this it a move for 2012 and beyond there are not going to be a ton of teams bidding on him yankees mariners rangers are proably going to be the clubs bidding on him red sox have pitching the mets are not bidding onlee the dodgers would proably love to go after lee but they dont have money and the angels picked up haren so they are out so why not the mariners there should be enough payroll to give lee a holiday type deal you can even structure the contract to be backloaded some what to fit him into next years payroll lee should be considered a special case like what arod was there were willing to expand payroll for him why not lee As far as the players going into arb years i dont believe there is anyway kotchamn is brought back or sean white and i dont think there is room for rrs why waste the 2 million on him when you have players like french who can fill the backend of rotation for the minnium and if there is a good deal for ardasma i would move him you have your closer of the future in leakeesince you are not winning next year let him get his feet wet next year |
| 26. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-06-2010 19:39:13 Again Edman the Braves tried to aquire Figgins for prospects and wanted no money from the Mariners in the deal. The Braves and most other MLB teams know that Figgins as a 3B is a 1.0-1.5 win player with his glove alone. If he hits within 85-90% of his career averages he is a bankable 3 win player making 9 mil a year. That is a bargain. It is not Figgins fault the Mariners moved him to a position he is ill equipped to play. Other teams know he has value still and that is why the Braves tried to trade Z a couple of garbage prospects and they sure as hell didn't expect the Mariners to pick up the check as well. Longoria, Beltre, Zimmerman; Figgins is a tick below and maybe even with those guys in terms of defensive value at 3B. If the Mariners decide to trade him they may not get much in return in terms of players but they certainly won't have to foot the bill. |
| 27. By: Edman on 08-06-2010 20:49:18 maurice, I suggest you investigate a little further. The Braves denied any attempt to acquire Figgins. But don't let that get in the way. Stop trying to make Figgins what he hasn't been this year. If you think teams aren't concerned that he's in decline, you're kidding yourself. Stop using WAR as a justification. I'm not buying that it was a position shift that affected his bat. If so, you could use that same line to try to sell Lopez' move to third. It's simply excuse making. |
| 28. By: rjfrik on 08-06-2010 20:50:54 You can put the Figgins trade talk to bed. There isn't a chance in hell he gets traded. Why on earth, if you were a smart guy and JZ is a smart guy, would you trade a VERY good ball player when he is at is absolute lowest? Answer: You would not. Has anyone actually looked at Figgins stats? He has been as unlucky as you can be, he BABIP is absurdly low. He's had a bad few months, he's turning it around. I fully expect next year to be the Figgins we all know and love. He isn't a power hitter where the park factor effects him, he's a OBP guy that makes good contact. He's been unlucky. Big whoop. Move on. |
| 29. By: Uncle Al on 08-06-2010 21:22:00 Jason Even if Bedard starts with a Minor League deal, he is still going to get a minimum ML contract if he is healthy and that will cost them at least $500K and probably more. If Branyan won't stay in Seattle for $1M, then that $1M will go towards another cheap DH (maybe even a $500K in house which doesn't bother me in the least). Even after making adjustments for Lopez and RRS, they still sit at $95M and I think the budget will be lower than that and there is no way I ever said anything about raising the budget for 2011. It is the dumbest thing the M's could possibly do. The hands of Armstrong and Lincoln were all over this year but at least they didn't kill the rebuild like they did with the Bedard trade in the past. Armstrong and Lincoln are like a Cancer that just won't go away. They need to move at least two players before next season and Lopez at $5M and Aardsma at $4M should be the most likely candidates. Edman #18 When are you ever going to learn to read? Where did I say we needed to raise the budget? Zduriencik decided to sit on Lopez, Aardsma, and Kotchman to see if he can build more value first. Zduriencik didn't panick and do something stupid this year and he needs to make what changes he can between now and the 2011 season and be very serious about 2012 when he will also have about $20-25M to spend on FA's. |
| 30. By: Ungnome on 08-06-2010 23:33:00 Figgins has been hitting .275/.350/.350(numbers rounded) since mid May and .400BA since "the fight" on July 23. If he is traded who replaces him? Tui? Josh Wilson? Lopez option is picked up (shudder)? A different FA? None of those guys can do what Figgins can for this team. There are no cheap or in-house options at DH. Branyan is the M's best bet. Unless Bradley gets another opportunity to fail Branyan is in an M's uniform for 2011. Lopez is gone. He doesnt fit this organization, costs too much and is effectively blocking Ackley. A more easily movable option will be at 2nd with Figgins at 3rd until Ackley is ready in 2011. RRS will be given a contract and a chance in spring. If he sucks then the M's will cut him. We all thought he was a back end starter and for us to now say he doesnt have a career is too much. He will be given another chance because we can afford it. |
| 31. By: Uncle Al on 08-07-2010 00:28:19 Ungnome Both Figgins and Lopez have started hitting and Zduriencik doesn't throw anything away for nothing. He will keep Lopez until he can get value for him and RRS will not be flushed either. There is no hope for 2011 and the best we can hope for is that they can trade for a couple more pieces that will fit for 2012. i don't agree with you at all on Branyan. He isn't doing it this year and an old fart that can't hit or stay on the field isn't worth $5M to this team next year when they need to continue to rebuild. They still don't have enough bats for 2011 even if the keep Branyan and no money to buy one. If they did keep Branyan for $5M, they shoot themselves in the foot at another position and still have a crummny team. The M's are just screwed next year no matter what they do. |
| 32. By: Jackson on 08-07-2010 01:30:11 Lopez hasn't started hitting. wOBA by month, April .249 May .257 June .295 July .254 |
| 33. By: VikingArthur on 08-07-2010 01:48:55 Completely agree with #31 on Branyan. 5 million for a guy who may play 120 games? Didn't Vlad cost Texas $5 million? There will be a ton of older guys out there who would be a better value than Branyan if you wanted to spend $5m on a DH but that seems absurd. If Bradley is here next year...he is the DH, period. If not... sign someone off the scrap heap or let one of the kids from the minors who is a butcher on defense try it. Nothing to lose... 2011 is going to be ugly why keep an old oft-injured player like Branyan if he is not going to be part of the long term solution. |
| 34. By: rjfrik on 08-07-2010 03:07:26 I don't mind Miltion DHing next year. Might as well save the 5 million on Branyan. Hopefully we can trade Lopez this month. I don't see us picking up his option. Ackley just might start out with the big league club next year at 2nd base. You never know. If not just grab a stop gap for 2 months or so. Ichiro RF Figgins 3B Ackley 2B Bradley DH Smoak 1B Guitierez CF Saunders LF Moore C Wilson SS My guess is that will be your Seattle 9 next year. What we like to call a rebuilding year. |
| 35. By: Uncle Al on 08-07-2010 05:48:52 Jackson Take a look at August. The hitting has been very recent and for a very short period. rjfrik That's funny. My same starters with a 2 month stop gap for Ackley. I've also got Lopez at $5M and Branyan at $1.5M on the bench until they are really gone because I don't know what else to do with them. Zduriencik will want something for them and doesn't usually give anything away. Another reason why Jason's statement about building the roster for 2011 now is kind of fruitless but it tells me things so i will continue to play with it and make the changes as they happen. |
| 36. By: 1990Coug on 08-07-2010 09:53:00 Al, good point about, "Zduriencik.........doesn't usually give anything away." Bavasi always seemed to force deadline and waiver wire deals and give up useful players for lower level minor league prospects never to be heard from again. I like that Zduriencik is willing to take money back in a trade like he did with Sweeney (yes I know there is a possible ptbnl). Zduriencik can turn around and use that money to help sign draft picks or international free agents. Maybe the money gained in the Sweeney trade will help get Paxton signed. |
| 37. By: safecochatter on 08-07-2010 10:06:09 agree with lineup in #34...if the roster stays the same. including bringing up ackley in june to keep the fa away for an additional year. but..jack never ever does anything...nice.. and easy. we got waiver trades currently,winter meetings to go thru,plus fa signing period. for instance ..current rumor Two sources -- one with ties to the Mets organization, the other formerly with the organization -- tell Adam Rubin of ESPNNewYork.com that the Mariners are involved with trade dialogue with the Mets and that Martinez could be included in a potential deal. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/the-mets-and-mariners-may-have-something-cooking.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter |
| 38. By: Jackson on 08-07-2010 10:33:47 Uncle Al, Jose Lopez has played three games in August. Sure he has five hits, but you can look back at the previous months and find similar stretches. From April 13th-15th, he had seven hits. May 26th-29th, June 1st-3rd, July 4th-6th, each had five hits in three games. That's why you shouldn't take a three game sample size and say that he is hitting. |
| 39. By: Ungnome on 08-07-2010 10:57:55 Loafie has been hitting recently. HAHAHA Small sample size doesnt have anything to do with that. Am I right? Bradley as the #4 hitter seems eerily similar to the offensive juggernaut the Mariners put together in 2010. Oh, wait.... |
| 40. By: Uncle Al on 08-07-2010 11:24:05 Jackson I can't believe anybody would be dumb enough to spend the amount of time you have spent on this to try and prove a point which means nothing. Are you the statistic cop on this site that tells us we must have 100, 200, 300, plate appearances before we can make a statement about what we've observed. Lopez has been hitting again since he's been back and a small sample size is just fine until something changes. It is an accurate observation to date. Zduriencik knows a hell of a lot more about Lopez than either of us does and has not traded him at his lowest value. He's had the same problem with most of his other starters this year and doesn't need four months of statistics to tell him that these guys haven't been hitting or will continue down the same road. This year is going to produce many useless statistics as this is not anything like a normal year as problems have compounded creating more problems. |
| 41. By: Ungnome on 08-07-2010 12:06:15 I think Willie Boom-Boom put together a few good games in a row. Maybe the M's should go sign him. There is a time to stick with a sinking ship and a time to jump off. Lopez having an option year would be the chance to cut your losses and bail. Just becuase no team wants to trade for Lopez at our asking price doesnt mean we have to keep him. |
| 42. By: Uncle Al on 08-07-2010 12:59:00 Ungnome Your comment about Willie Boom-Boom is idiotic and I never said we had to keep Lopez. How in the hell do you guys come up with this crap? This year is lost and so is next year and if Lopez isn't traded this year, no decision has to be made until they have to exercise the option. Same thing is true with the Arby guys. Zduriencik is so good at what he does in getting value for just about everything in his trades. He seems to know when to wait and when he'll be able to get his price. And now wasn't the time for Lopez abd a few others. |
| 43. By: marinerforever on 08-07-2010 13:46:04 Uncle Al you claim that we are already at 95 million but acroding to cots we are only at 69 million and in that it does not account for the fact that ichiro defers 5million so that takes us back to 64 million add branyan and you are back to the 69 million add in 5 million for lopez 3 million for vargas 4 million for ardsma 2 million for league and a million for rrs for everyone who wants him back that only brings you to 84 or so and could go down to 80 if you dont have lopez so how do u get to 95 |
| 44. By: Talmadge on 08-07-2010 13:46:04 All This is my virgin post. I love Ichiro and all, but I don't love that he takes up 15-20% of our payroll. He'll be nearly 40 by the time we're righting the ship. Moving him to NY would likely net us 2 very good prospects (Montero?) while giving us the payroll flexibilty we need to add a quality starter or fix another hole. For being such a great leadoff hitter, we still are last in runs. By trading him now, how much worse could we get? Free Ichiro! |
| 45. By: marinerforever on 08-07-2010 13:58:02 talmadge no matter how much anyone would want to trade ichiro the only way he gets traded is if he asks to be traded our ownership will not trade ichiro on it's own |
| 46. By: Chris Crawford on 08-07-2010 14:09:10 Guys, STOP with the personal stuff....jeez, no more "you're an idiot" or I will force you guys to watch Desperate Housewives for three hours at a time. |
| 47. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-07-2010 14:19:19 It was the M's that killed the Figgins trade talk with the Braves because the Braves offered nada. I also didn't say Figgins position switch affected his offense I said the M's destroyed 1.0-1.5 wins in value by switching Figgins from a position where he was an elite defender to a position where he is sub par. They destroyed his value as a defensive player, he and his slumps is what killed his value on offense. The point is Figgins has a very reasonable contract that will not have to be augmented with a cash payout for the Mariners to move him, which is what you maintained Edman. Now it looks as if the Mets might be offering some real prospects for Figgins so him being traded won't shock me, the M's including any cash would. |
| 48. By: marinerforever on 08-07-2010 14:48:06 where is everyone getting that we are going to be pulling of a big trade and why would the mets want figgins they would just be putting him at second like we are since they have wright at thrid |
| 49. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-07-2010 15:09:27 It is a rumor circulating out of the New York press. Variations on it have both Francoeur and Luis Castillo coming back to the Mariners so I don't believe them much. It does suggest that Figgins has passed through waivers though so I have little doubt that Jack is actively shopping him. Especially with it looking like Wak will get one more shot next year. Jack will not give Figgins away though and I put the chances at zero that the Mariners pay any of his salary. |
| 50. By: 11records on 08-07-2010 15:14:41 My insane DH solution... Acquire Micah Owings. He's shot as a pitcher. Yes, he's a RH bat, but he has 70+ power. It's not like he's hitting wall scrapers... The park wouldn't hurt him. And he can have a mop up role in the pen. |
| 51. By: Lamda on 08-07-2010 15:15:22 lol - chris - they get it from jason, he rips into people left and right on here, hehe. As for Figgy - i'm all for him getting traded just so long as its a deal that makes sense for the M's. If someone took his whole contract i'd be fine with that as Ackley can play 2B and i'd prefer someone who could actually hit the ball at 3B anyways. If we get anything in return then obviously it depends how much money we are willing to send. Nobody is going to send us a great prospect if they also gotta pay 27mill over the next 3 years - thats just the way it works. I know some would love that but its not going to happen. |
| 52. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-07-2010 15:29:44 Figgins contract pays him less than his actual worth. He is the second best leadoff hitter in baseball. If the Mariners want to trade him there will be a line of teams perfectly willing to take on his contract. The only question will be if Jack can get players he likes in return. Figgins is not a crippling contract it is a modest contract for a player just starting to leave his prime. Lets not compare it to the contracts of Milton Bradley, Jose Guillen, Carlos Silva and Oliver Perez the situation is in no way similar. |
| 53. By: marinerforever on 08-07-2010 17:14:26 i dont understand the want to trade figgins he is a buildng block with him nd figgins and ichiro at the top of a lineup ot works it just doesnt work when lopez is your four hitter or kotcham as your three hitter put a better 3/4/ hitters around them and it can work the indians won for years in the early 90ies with a123 that were high on base in 2012 are lineup should look like this ichiro figgins ackley feilder or gonlazes who ever you sign to dh smoak saunders guti truinfel moore we just need to make it through one more year of average or less baseball |
| 54. By: Lailoken on 08-07-2010 18:48:26 #50 I don't think you're insane at all for liking Owings as a hitter. He has a .861 OPS in 200 career plate appearances in MLB & a .827 OPS in 50 AAA plate appearances. Sure, it's a small sample but he's doing that apart from his regular focus of pitching. Not only that if you look closer he has a .978 OPS in his career against RHP which is astounding for a right-handed hitter. He has yet to learn how to hit lefties well so his reverse split is severe (.579 OPS). One could easily assume if he focused on hitting that would be remedied. Scouts say power often arrives late but Owings has shown flashes of power without much attention paid to the art of hitting. As a pitcher his walk rates have climbed each season to the point where he may indeed decide being a professional hitter is the way to go. He may turn out to be a cost-effective option too. I'd scratch my head less if management picked Owings as a platoon bat for Branyan & Smoak than if they went the Carl Everett washed up vet route. |
| 55. By: VikingArthur on 08-07-2010 19:26:32 Yeah... Owings for basically nothing vs. Branyan/Griffey or to be named washed up veteran is a no brainer. Turn Owings loose for 500 ABs. He could NOT be worse than Kotchman, Branyan, Griffey, etc. |
| 56. By: brockfs1 on 08-07-2010 20:10:23 Jason or Chris, have u guys heard anything about the Figgins to the mets rumors? They pulled F-mart and Tejada from AAA last night! supposedly there waiting for a M's pitcher to clear waivers |
| 57. By: Uncle Al on 08-07-2010 20:26:07 #43 marinerforever We just went through all this a few days ago. You have to throw in Buyouts, Options, Estimated Arbitration numbers, and then about 6% of the total payroll for the Contingency Fund. Cots is only one part of this and doesn't come close to giving you the whole story. You put all this together and you come up with $95M. I have net salaries of $78.8M on 26 players, Prorated Signing Bonuses of $3.7M, Buyouts of $7.5M, and the Contingency Fund of $5M. Play with the numbers and see what you get. My bench consists of Johnson, both Wilson's (OF/DH, IF), Branyan, and Lopez and hopefully most of that changes by 2011. I also have one extra bench player at $500K. Now all we can do is sit back and wait and see what magic Zduriencik might be able to do. He doesn't have much more to work with without using the farm system. Your figures probably don't include the $7.5M for Buyouts or the $5M for the Contingency Fund. |
| 58. By: Rickv25 on 08-07-2010 21:18:34 Jason, I think its pretty cool you do about half the writeups for the rumor mill on espn. Having said that , I assume that since you it hasn't been reported there or on this site that there isnt much validity in the Figgins to Mets rumor. |
| 59. By: rocketdawg31 on 08-07-2010 21:40:53 Re: Figgins to Mets rumor. I think Fernando Martinez and Ruben Tejada getting scratched out of AAA-ball starts is strictly shuffling on their part...I noticed they released Alex Cora and designated Jesus Feliciano for assignment. I'm also guessing that if Jason/Chris don't have a buzz humming around here on such a thing, there's nothing going on of any real substance. They both make a point of getting us news ASAP, if not sooner. And I don't think it makes sense to move Figgins unless the return is substantial enough to deal with the inevitable middle-infield shuffle on our side. The one that we are not ready for as an org just yet, unless a middle infielder who's ML-caliber right now is in the deal. Just don't see it as likely, but I've been proven wrong before. |
| 60. By: rjfrik on 08-07-2010 23:00:53 56# Any news on what pitcher it might be? Aardsma, League, Vargas? Hmm. I heard Figgy already cleared waivers. Wonder if it's Figgy and Pitcher for F-Mart and Tejada. |
| 61. By: Rudolf on 08-07-2010 23:34:49 Jason or Chris, Any word on how Poythress looks over at 3B? Thanks! |
| 62. By: marinermutt on 08-07-2010 23:42:34 off subject, but are we not glad that Lackey picked the Sox over us last winter. Lot of talk that we were in it with Lackey to the very end. Now, an average pitcher who is owed a ton of $$$ for a number of years. Would have really impacted the next few budgets. Also, if we got Lackey, that probably means no Lee which means no Smoak. |
| 63. By: Chris Crawford on 08-08-2010 00:06:16 RE: Figgins to the mets All I can say is, there's a reason that the rumor popped. RE: Poythress at third -- Not good. |
| 64. By: marinerforever on 08-08-2010 00:34:22 Uncle Al if both wilson are on your bench who is your sarting shortstop and how do you gt to 7.5 million in buyouts only players who have options are lopez and bedard and thats only 750,000 |
| 65. By: Uncle Al on 08-08-2010 01:58:12 Starting SS is Jack Wilson. Bench is Mike and Josh. Lopez and Bedard are $250K each. Branyan $500K, Betancourt $1M, and $5.5M on Silva. All the deadwood ends before 2012. |
| 66. By: jgstecker on 08-08-2010 09:24:23 Figgins for Castillo and Francoeur makes a lot of sense. First the money is square for 2010. Frenchy will certainly be released after this season, he's just a warm body to even out the deal. NY has been trying to move Castillo forever. His $6 million salary in 2011 is a sunk cost for them. They would view this trade much the same way as we viewed the Silva trade. Essentially they would be signing Figgy to a 3 year $20 million deal. Not a bad deal at all really. He can be an asset for them. Seattle gets the perfect stopgap 2B. His salary guarantees he opens 2011 as the starter at 2B next year, which ensures Ackley starts in Tacoma next year and prevents his service time clock from starting until 2012. Castillo won't prevent Seattle from calling Ackley up in May or June however. There's still a hole at 3B until Triunfel is ready, but with Figgins's contract gone there's more money to address the problem. |
| 67. By: marinerforever on 08-08-2010 11:51:20 jgstecker please tell me you are kidding about your view of the trade that would be horrible trade why would you give away what has been a productive piece for nothing there is a reason the mets have been trying to move castilo plus you have to remember that figgins option will almost certainly vest so it is really 4yrs 30 million Uncle Al the payouts to silva and bentecort are already in the 69 million dollar figure |
| 68. By: Uncle Al on 08-08-2010 14:01:45 marinerforever Ichiro is $17M plus $1M in prorated bonus or $18M total. You don't back out the $5M deferral in the budget. Figgins at $9.5M, Bradley at $12M, Gutierrez ar $4.3M, Wilson at $5M, Hernandez at $10.7M, Ackley at $1.5M, Bedard, Branyan, and RRS at $1.5M each, League at $2M, and Aardsma at $4M. Everything else at $500K each. I just increased my Vargas Arby number to $3M so I now have a $98M budget. It still doesn't change things much as they still need to trade off a player or two. |
| 69. By: Rickv25 on 08-08-2010 14:45:36 Morrow took no hitter into ninth before giving up infield single. |
| 70. By: Lailoken on 08-08-2010 15:20:14 Morrow's final line 9 innings, 1 hit, 2 walks, 17 strikeouts, & 136 pitches. |
| 71. By: rrwrayiii on 08-08-2010 15:23:23 Jason- I see Poythress is now at 3B. Can you give an update on this situation ? Good and bad? Thanks. |
| 72. By: Blowgun7 on 08-08-2010 15:58:40 That Morrow trade remains idiotic IMO. Chavez is really going to have to become a solid regular for that deal to ever make sense to me. |
| 73. By: rjfrik on 08-08-2010 16:02:37 17k's. Holy Shig!! Yeah I really didn't like that trade at the time either. Thought it was part of the Lee trade in my opinion. But I did however like the fact that we acquired Chavez in the deal. I think he has a chance to be a pretty solid bat. Here's hoping. Morrow would of killed in an M's uni this year. |
| 74. By: Blowgun7 on 08-08-2010 16:04:39 I hope it was part of the Lee deal because it was stupid to trade to young SP for a reliever and a bat who was in low A and not highly thought of. That and signing Josh Fields remain the two moves that I just totally do not understand. |
| 75. By: marinerforever on 08-08-2010 17:06:35 i do not believe morrow would have ever reached his ceiling with the mariners there was to much damage done beetween the fo and morrow they should of never brought him up as a reliever but bavassi was trying to save his job. and not to get to excited morrow has only showed flashes of brillance he has barely been average throughout the year |
| 76. By: Blowgun7 on 08-08-2010 17:10:37 Of course he could have reached his ceiling here. All he needed was a commitment from the organization to let him start games and stop jerking him around. If Jack had said to Brandon "You're one of our starters for 2010, go get em" there is no reason to believe Brandon wouldn't have had similar success. But our organization foolishly believed they were going to win the West this year, and didn't want to go through some of the speed bumps they would have dealt with. And what do you mean "he's showed flashes of brilliance but has been barely average"??? He's been an above average starter this season. Check the numbers. |
| 77. By: VikingArthur on 08-08-2010 20:18:10 Morrow being traded was the result of Bavasi's idiotic handling of him. Frankly...I think Morrow had such a distrust with the M's front office that they had to trade him. It was a horrendous trade...a giveaway. League is a guy. The best late inning reliever in the world is not worth a starter who is quickly becoming a 2/3 starter. Jack knew that... but I think his hand was forced either from Morrow's tuning out of the organization or Chuck/Howard's role in the diabetes rumors, etc. Morrow probably needed out to restart himself mentally. |
| 78. By: safecochatter on 08-08-2010 20:35:46 one way to look at this... outgoing; morrow,aumont,gillies,j.rammirez incoming; smoak,league,chavez,beaven,lueke,and lawson. all six incoming could be wearing mlb jerseys by this time next year. |
| 79. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-08-2010 21:00:25 For Chavez to see MLB next year he will have to hit AA and turn into the second coming of Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron. Dude is three years away at the minimum from what I've read. |
| 80. By: safecochatter on 08-08-2010 21:29:54 your right,only 5 of the 6 can make it by sept call ups next year. thanx for the positive input. |
| 81. By: burn31226 on 08-08-2010 22:09:16 I agree with safeochatter, Morrow is gone. I would like if morrow was still here but he isn't. Let's go with what he got right now and the future. So get over it. The end!! |
| 82. By: Edman on 08-09-2010 12:58:55 One thing I hate about this time of year is that some of you get "Trade Fever". It's a disease that takes over your neural system, and alters brain patterns to implant the seeds of "The Magic Trade" that suddenly removes perceived problems with a baseball team's roster and/or financial system. Suddenly, a player removed from a minor league game, suddenly spreads thoughts of that big trade. Someone is going to bail us out!!! Yes, i know it's sacrastic, but try to look at events level-headedly. Not every move has a secret meaning. Not everything written by a beat writer should be taken as any form of gospel. Other teams are not lining up to remove our problems. Let the Milton Bradley situation remind you that to get rid of a problem, you generally get another in return. Be it a player, or an empty roster spot you have to fill. There are no magic beans out there that will suddenly fix the wrongs of the past. You simply take on another problem, yours or someone else's. |
| 83. By: Edman on 08-09-2010 13:09:31 BTW, Uncle Al, this makes no sense..... "Even if Bedard starts with a Minor League deal, he is still going to get a minimum ML contract if he is healthy and that will cost them at least $500K and probably more." So what, if Bedard gets a minor league contract. Trying to use it as a basis for not making a deal, is futile. Wouldn't the major league minimum apply to ANY player who fills a roster spot? That money is the minimum sunk cost for any player on the roster. Any money he'd be paid has no adverse reflection on payroll, compared to many others. I don't understand your obsessive reation to anything related to payroll. Creating more room in the budget doesn't guarantee anything, other than flexability. It makes no difference. Sound baseball decisions do. |
| 84. By: brockfs1 on 08-09-2010 14:38:24 according to espn 710 Wak and coaches have been fired! |
| 85. By: Marlin Man on 08-09-2010 15:10:23 WAk not the problem with this club- who in th hell doesn't know that??? But, as one of the old guys sais years ago- the day they hire you, you know they will one day fire you also. Thanks your efforts WAK, the best to ya Now, how about YOU Z????? |
| 86. By: Galway on 08-09-2010 15:24:38 It has been discussed that some players blamed him for driving Griffey into retirement or something like that. Nobody out runs father time, not a manager's fault but if players felt that way (even though they are likely wrong) it is hard for a manager, even a good one to lead effectively. If players no longer listen its time to go. That is just part of the coaching gig in all of sports. Hope Wak catches on elsewhere. This org desperately needs leadership in many spots. |
| 87. By: Uncle Al on 08-09-2010 16:39:05 There is only so much of Edman's insulting posts that anyone can endure and I'm far from being the only one that will say this. As long as he is allowed to post here, he will irritate numerous people and not just me. |
| 88. By: dewey on 08-09-2010 16:45:32 Was Wak a great manager ? I dont know he had one of the poorest put together rosters in Mariners history this year in this persons opinion. All we heard about is how great a job Jack and his crew did well i disagree.Hindsight is allways easy but if you want to call a spade a spade look at the roster and tell me how they where gonna score runs and who was gonna drive them in from day 1? I think the defensive metrics react this club and Figgins contract was awful but with that said if Vargas and Fister hadnt pitched way above there head where would we be? Bad roster and job done by Jack and crew |
| 89. By: Uncle Al on 08-09-2010 16:58:14 Most of us knew they were at least one bat short and more likely two bats short before the season started. And then Zduriencik got upset over the blogs all saying the M's still had $5-$10 million left to spend while he was trying to find a couple cheap bats to fill out the roster. He was telling all of us to shut up because we were causing him trouble in negotiating with agents. Then came the flood of information saying that there wasn't anymore money to spend and that the budget had been reduced for the year. So we were two bats short and everything went wrong. |
| 90. By: StandinPat on 08-09-2010 17:04:52 #90 If Figgins, Lopez, Kotchman, Bradley and Byrnes simply perform somewhere close to reasonable expectations and career averages, this team easily scores another 100+ runs and is atleast close to being a .500 ballclub. |
| 91. By: Rudolf on 08-09-2010 17:27:50 As great a guy as he appears to be, I'm not even a little bit sad to see Wak go. Perhaps he didn't have much of an offense to work with. But could he have done any worse with what he did have? Chone Figgins, Jack WIlson, Casey Kotchman, Rob Johnson, Milton Bradley, Ken Griffey Jr., Jose Lopez, even Franklin Gutierrez, are all having the worst seasons of their career. At the same time. Under Wakamatsu. Sure, Z could have gone out and picked up a handful of guys preparing to be at their worst. It's possible. Not probable, but possible. That still doesn't explain Lopez and Gutierrez, the latter of whom looked like he wanted to have a good year in back in April before the sepsis set in. Still, onus being laid on the players and not the coach, what about the base running mistakes? And the bullpen gaffs? And the fistfights? Griffey's playing time? Lopez in the 4-hole? White in high-leverage situations? The steady decline that is culminating in the worst offensive season since whenever? Is that all the fault of the players? No. It's not. Bottom line: Wakamatsu is, at this point in his career, a sub-standard manager who cannot maximize or motivate his players, nor consistently make his line-ups and bullpen work in his favor, (as poor as the roster is). To relieve Wak of responsibility for this abortion of a season, and let him off the hook as a "sacrificial lamb" is, in my opinion, a result of either not paying enough attention to the games, or an emotional attchment to the guy, (ala Willie bleeping Bloomquist). Either way, who cares. He's gone. We're still moving in the right direction. I support Jack Z as much as ever, even if Morrow just KO'd the Rays like Kerry Wood spanked Astros circa 1998. |
| 92. By: baseballman on 08-09-2010 17:39:48 way to completely ignore 2009 rudolph...guti is having a bad year at the plate this year (under wak) but what about 2009 when he had his best year at the plate (under wak) or when lopez hit 25 HRs last year (under wak) or when branyan jacked 31 bombs while only playin 116 games (under wak) plus a lot of the crap that you mentioned had more to do with the roster itself...its ignorant to blame wak for everything bad that went on this year people like you are why wak got fired, you look for a scape goat and the manager is the easiest to point the blame, most times unrightfully so. |
| 93. By: dewey on 08-09-2010 17:41:39 # 93 Teams that our rebuilding usually dont have the avg age of over 31 ! Check the opening day roster they where trying to win dont kid your self because they kidded themselves.Kotchman hasnt been good for 2 years Bradley get your problem for mine trade Byrnes only 400 k but has been hurt our stunk for 2 years.Dont forget Bedards milliuon and a half who had 2 years of shoulder surgery going into this year.Check how many pitchers come back after back to back SHOULDER not elbow surgerys the rate is a bout 2%.Lopez had a bad year yep ypur right and no one in there right mind even came close to offering a singles hitting guy like Figgy that much money so quit drinking the KOOL AID because it isnt good.Rob Johnson had 3 surgerys last winter did you really expect alot out of him? I guess they did too the defensive metrics thing is crap go ask Theo in Boston he will even admit that now! Its a very bad club |
| 94. By: dewey on 08-09-2010 17:43:10 # 93 Do you work for the Mariners? I hear you say we alot? Our you on the inside? |
| 95. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 08-09-2010 18:13:38 The only person responsible for Wak losing his job is Wak. He lost the veterans on the team the first weak of the season when Bradley had some overly generous strikes called against him and Wak wouldn't drop the zen master routine for five minutes to stand up for his player. Then he further alienated the veterans when he stopped even talking to Junior. Yet Junior is the one who is called childish. Wak was terrible from day one because he was the cheapest option and he had the right ancestry. Had the best man gotten the job this would be a different story. Wak was clearly not the best man for the job. |
| 96. By: Chris Crawford on 08-09-2010 18:23:38 99 and 98 -- Minus the fact that he has a few grammar problems, and we don't insult people about grammar here, everything he said makes sense -- so stop it. Are we really blaming Don Wakamatsu for the fact these players can't hit though? What exactly do you think a manager does? Blame the hitting coach if you want (that's still crap) but he has NOTHING to do with the poor seasons from the offense. If you want to blame Wak, blame the weird lineups, blame the odd pitching decisions, blame him for the fact the team didn't win I guess -- but he has NOTHING to do with the individual seasons of crappy offensive players. Nothing. Yeesh. |
| 97. By: Chris Crawford on 08-09-2010 18:28:42 And as for if this club was rebuilding in April, absolutely was not. You don't trade for Lee or sign Figgins if you are rebuilding. That's beyond obvious. |
| 98. By: Chris Crawford on 08-09-2010 18:42:15 If everyone has a problem with the fact I don't enjoy non constructive criticism on a board about baseball -- they can email me at crawford@prospectinsider.com and tell me how much of an idiot I am. Because I'm just going to start deleting posts that have direct comments against others -- I guess it reached that point. That sucks. |
| 99. By: baseballman on 08-09-2010 18:45:06 Edited for personally attacking a poster. |
| 100. By: baseballman on 08-09-2010 18:46:17 Who said anything about rebuilding in April? And a rebuilding team can trade for one of the best pitchers in baseball when the price in basement bargain. Look at what we traded for Lee and what we got in return for Lee, ya trading for Lee helped out in our rebuild. There wasnt hardly any risk in getting him because worst case scenario (kind of) is we get a 1st rounder and a sandwich pick which is still better than what we gave up. As for figgins, while i didnt like the move and it wreaked of the 2 stooges trying to paint a different picture to the average fan/soccer mom, it had its benefits to even a team that is rebuilding/retooling to stay competitive. This year was always and only about being competitive with an outside chance of winning. If that werent the case then we would have seen the Ms spend more and sign a Jason Bay or keep Branyan. If the Ms were trying to win this year theyd have dont more than sign one lead-off hitter who can play multiple positions |
| 101. By: baseballman on 08-09-2010 18:46:24 Edited for personally attacking a poster. |
| 102. By: StandinPat on 08-09-2010 18:50:36 Edited for personally attacking a poster. |
| 103. By: Uncle Al on 08-09-2010 18:53:08 Edited for personally attacking a poster. |
| 104. By: StandinPat on 08-09-2010 18:53:49 Chris, I don't see how I made fun of him. Without periods and spaces it's hard to separate one point from the next. That's all I said. As far as the whole rebuilding thing goes, I'm didn't see where anyone was arguing that the M's weren't trying to look like they weren't rebuilding, but simply stated their view of this team in its current state. " Teams that our rebuilding usually dont have the avg age of over 31 !" Using the average age of the roster is useless when that number is buoyed by a 40yr old Jr and a 36yr old Sweeney. The only two players over 30 who were likely to be around for the next couple of years were Figgins and Ichiro, Lee was a would be free agent and I sincerely doubt Bradley had any chance of being re-signed after 2011. |
| 105. By: Rickv25 on 08-09-2010 18:54:31 Jason, Chris, I was just curious on your opinions of Rick Adair being let go also. |
| 106. By: Edman on 08-09-2010 18:54:58 Uncle Al #88.....I suggest that anyone who calls somone's suggestion "dumb" and "idiotic" (see posts #40 and #42) might want to review their own conduct, first. I suggest you are less tolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion, than I am. Just saying. |
| 107. By: Lailoken on 08-09-2010 19:00:15 Wak just wasn't a fit. He's a nice enough seeming guy from the outside but for a former catcher I couldn't believe some of his strategic decisions. He frequently chose to leave samehanded bats in during close games. Similarly, he failed to put relievers in the right roles. His love for players like Rob Johnson & Sean White, if true as rumored, borders on ludicrous. Throw in the poor seasons by many players & the clubhouse discontent. Heck, I'd rather have Bobby Valentine. Somebody more dynamic please, some fire in the belly & mind. Lou had many flaws but it was worse watching Melvin, Hargrove, & Wak toe the line too often. Outward, demonstrative passion every once in awhile would be preferable this time around. We all know that managers don't have a huge effect on the win column but sound game management would also be a major plus. |
| 108. By: safecochatter on 08-09-2010 19:29:01 wak is too laid back for a mlb manager's position. he's probably gonna land somewhere as someomes bench coach and be very sucessful at it. if you look at the sucessful years this frachise has had,with all the great players ,the sucsessful years were with lou pinella in the dugout.griff left,randy left,arod left..and still the m's won. gotta have a manager that gets 100% from his team. |
| 109. By: Rudolf on 08-09-2010 19:35:57 baseballman (in reference to #92), The team is clearly affected by something more than a bunch of down years. It was Wak's job to get the most out of his players and he got the least out of them. Jack saw this and canned him. Last year was fun and all. There wasn't any pressure to perform, that's for sure. Zero expectations. 2010 was about expectations and Wak choked. He couldn't get the right guy in the right place at the right time. When things went sour, he couldn't keep the morale up. He can't go out and hit for the players, but he can do other things to help the team keep a good attitude and turn things around during difficult times. But he couldn't figure anything out. Anything really. I'm sure Wak is a great neighbor, and he may have a good career ahead of him. Lot's of good things to think and say about him as a person. |
| 110. By: rjfrik on 08-09-2010 20:16:42 Dang it. I missed the school yard fight? Who was it Edman against Uncle Al? Wish I could of tevo'd the thread so I could rewind and see the posts before they were deleted/edited. |
| 111. By: Uncle Al on 08-09-2010 20:26:33 Edman #106 I suggest that you should go back to minding your own business in your little room at Western State. I suggest that you love baiting people. And who cares what you think as I've told you many times before. Just saying. |
| 112. By: lewis on 08-10-2010 11:28:51 I don't understand why people keep saying the Griffey debacle? Griffey was put on the team he couldn't contribute and he didn't retire and he wanted to play regular and the FO didn't seem to get that, so DW put him on the bench. What else could he do? Most people on here suported thta and wondered why it took so long. Maybe I missed an important piece of info, but what did Wak do wrong that the higher ups did right in that situation. With Figgins, look this team can't win by giving up free bases, there are too many deficiencies. Figgins deserved to be benched. More than he has been. There are calls Wak made that are questionable, there is the attitude, there is the easy piece to get rid of to change things. But I don't think Griffey and Figgins are mistakes unless you want to look how the FO acted or didn't. IMO |
| 113. By: Uncle Al on 08-10-2010 16:51:38 The problem was that Lincoln and Armstrong brought Griffey back for the 2010 season and put him on the team when he'd already proven he was finished. Wak had Griffey shoved down his throat and was the one forced to deal with the fallout when he couldn't perform. That's why it's called a debacle. This situation never should have happened and many blogs stated that the problem would occur. |
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 |